Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

Scotland

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister without Portfolio to what extent his publicity about facilities available to firms seeking to develop in Scotland deals with the quality and quantity of the labour supply.

Mr. Millan: asked the Minister without Portfolio to what extent he publicises the availability of adequate transport facilities in Scotland as an attraction to potential industrial developers.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. W. F. Deedes): The booklet Room to Expand contains a section on the labour market in Scotland. This makes the point that Scotland has a surplus of people available for work and that these are people with industrial sympathies and experience and a high

standard of basic and specialised education. The booklet also contains sections on road, rail and air communications, both within Scotland and linking Scotland with other parts of the country and overseas.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the information provided shows where the labour is located? In other words, does it point out the growth areas and also the other areas with high rates of unemployment? Does the booklet also give particulars of the training which these men have at their disposal? How and to what extent is this literature distributed?

Mr. Deedes: The answer to the first question is "No". This being a booklet for Great Britain, it cannot go into undue detail, but inquiries are invited at the end of the booklet to get the details which readers may require from the regional offices. I think that that answers the hon. Member's other two points.

Mr. Millan: On the question of transport, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he is getting proper co-operation from his Government colleagues? Is he not aware that in Scotland there is considerable dissatisfaction with the attitude of the Minister of Transport towards the Beeching plan, and in the case of the Minister of Aviation considerable dissatisfaction about the cutting of air services between Scotland and Scandinavia? Can the right hon. Gentleman consult his


colleagues so that there may be proper co-operation?

Mr. Deedes: Without accepting any of that, what concerns me is that in this brochure particulars are set out about Scottish communications and what will interest the developer. Information is given about the new express freight services, the new marshalling yards, and the massive improvements in the trunk road service.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he would find it easier to publicise the attractions of the Dundee development area to industrialists if he could persuade the Minister of Aviation to start an air service between Dundee and the South?

Mr. Deedes: I will take note of that.

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister without Porfolio to what extent publicity concerning the potentialities of Scotland is co-ordinated with the activities of the Scottish Council and other public bodies.

Mr. Deedes: Through the Scottish Information Office, which is responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, close contact is maintained with the Scottish Council and other bodies to achieve the widest and most effective publicity for Scotland both at home and overseas.

Mr. Ross: In connection with his responsibilities for publicity, will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Scottish Council, for instance, has had delegations visiting Scandinavia to try to encourage trade activities between Scotland and that part of the world? May I ask what the position is now when we have other Government Departments hindering aspects of those activities in the matter of air services?

Mr. Deedes: I do not accept that at all. This work is done through the Scottish Information Office, and there is a good deal of evidence to show that, working with such bodies as the Films of Scotland Committee and others, it has put over very effective publicity.

Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep the publicity up to date? It is no good publicising the availability of air services to Prestwick when the Government are cutting down that air

service. It is no good publicising air services in the Highlands when the Government are removing them as well. When will real concern be shown about what is happening in Scotland, and when can we have adequate services and publicity?

Mr. Deedes: However much money is spent on publicising this and that, the portrait of Scotland is largely painted by those who represent it.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister without Portfolio what special steps he is taking to publicise the attractions of the Scottish Highlands in order to attract more visitors during the summer of 1964.

Mr. Deedes: The Scottish Tourist Board publicises the tourist attractions of Scotland throughout the United Kingdom. Publicity overseas is undertaken by the British Travel and Holidays Association which acts in close consultation with the Tourist Board. The attractions of the Highlands as a holiday area will continue to form an important element in these campaigns.

Mr. Rankin: I am aware of those facts, but I am anxious to know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is doing to support them, say with funds. Is he aware that during the winter of 1963 the weather in the Western Isles was of Mediterranean quality, while the rest of Britain was freezing? Does he realise that that attraction has not been sufficiently publicised by himself or by his Department? If he takes that fact in conjunction with the winter sports in the Cairngorms and other places, does he not realise that we could create in the Highlands of Scotland a winter tourist season which would make tourism not a seasonal but a permanent business in the Highlands? Can he say what he is doing with funds to support those people, including his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James), who are trying to show that "Nessie", the greatest attraction of all, is not just something in somebody's imagination but a real thing? Could he get it to surface with the help of his hon. Friend?

Mr. Deedes: Snow in the Cairngorms this winter would be welcome for winter sports. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the


British Travel and Holidays Association, which is responsible for publicising these places overseas, gets a substantial grant from the Board of Trade.

Mr. Rankin: How much?

Mr. Deedes: £1½ million in 1963–64. From that it reimburses the Tourist Board for the work that it does in preparing special Scottish material for use overseas. This was worth £40,000 in 1963–64.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Kilsyth

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Labour (1) how many men were registered as unemployed at the Kilsyth employment exchange at the latest possible date; and what steps he is taking to place the unemployed men in employment in the new town of Cumbernauld;
(2) how many women were registered as unemployed at the Kilsyth employment exchange at the latest possible date; and what steps he is taking to place the women in employment in the new town of Cumbernauld.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw): 175 men and 120 women were registered as unemployed at Kilsyth Employment Exchange on 10th February. Our local officers will continue in their efforts to find employment for these people by submitting them to suitable vacancies including any that may arise in Cumbernauld which is in the Kilsyth Employment Exchange area.

Mr. Bence: Will the hon. Gentleman consider establishing an employment exchange in the new town of Cumbernauld? The population is about 6,000 or 7,000, and I understand that there are hundreds of women who are unemployed there. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be as well to have an employment exchange in the new town so that they could register there, which would be much more convenient for them?

Mr. Whitelaw: I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Training Courses (North-East)

Mr. Woof: asked the Minister of Labour what plans he now has for increasing first-year apprenticeship train-

ing courses and adult training facilities in Government training centres in the North-East.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Joseph Godber): During the present year I plan to increase the training places for first year apprentices from 84 to 108 and for adults from 212 to about 700.

Mr. Woof: Is the Minister aware that, in the task of reshaping the North-East, we shall need to look ahead for many years to meet the changing pattern of demand? Is he further aware of the serious run-down in the labour force in many of the older industries and the need for complete reorganisation involved in the change in the structure of industry? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the retraining schemes are inadequate to ensure that the potential of available labour is brought to the full and in order to achieve economic stability?

Mr. Godber: I realise the importance of this subject. I share the hon. Member's view expressed in the first part of his supplementary question. I would point out that the annual figure for adult retraining, the actual throughput, would be twice the figure I gave, since it is a six months' course and, therefore, the figure would be 1,400 and not 700. That is a substantial increase over everything that we have done yet, but I am keeping the matter under review.

Dame Irene Ward: Has my right hon. Friend got the full co-operation of the employers and trade unions in this very important work which is being undertaken by his Department? Is he aware that this is very much welcomed on the North-East Coast?

Mr. Godber: In general, we have co-operation. There are one or two problems which have arisen, but we are keeping in very close touch.

Retail Trade (School-leavers)

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Labour what percentages of school-leavers are employed in the retail trade in urban areas and rural areas, respectively.

Mr. Whitelaw: Of the school-leavers under 18 years of age entering first employment in Great Britain in 1963,


14 per cent. of the boys and 28 per cent. of the girls went into the retail trades. I regret that separate figures for urban and rural areas are not available.

Miss Quennell: While thanking my hon. Friend for that information, may I ask whether he is aware that if, as a result of legislation which may currently pass through this House, the numbers of retail outlets are reduced, certainly for girls, their chance of employment will be greatly reduced? What steps is my hon. Friend taking or has he in mind to meet this situation?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that the services sector of our economy, like that of other developed nations, is important and is growing.

Apprenticeships

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the decision to raise the school-leaving age by one year, what alteration there will be in the traditional length of apprenticeships.

Mr. Godber: It will be some years before the raising of the school-leaving age will take effect. In the meantime, I hope that those responsible in industry will consider what modifications are required in industrial training, taking account both of the raising of the school-leaving age and of other changes in techniques and in the social framework. The establishment of the proposed industrial training boards will assist to this end.

Miss Quennell: Can my right hon. Friend assist in propelling this consideration to a rather speedier conclusion?

Mr. Godber: Certainly, I shall use all my endeavours to maintain the pressure on this whole question of apprenticeships. We have got to be ready to look at this matter in a fresh light in view of the changed circumstances of industry today.

Pension Rights (Transferability)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Labour, following the talks between the staff of the National Economic Development Council and the Departments concerned, regarding the transferability of

pension rights, what steps are being taken to implement the recommendations of the Council.

Mr. Wade: asked the Minister of Labour, what has been the outcome of the discussions between his Department and the staff of the National Economic Development Council on the subject of implementing the recommendation of the Council regarding the transferability of pension rights.

Mr. Godber: I understand that following their discussions with Departments, the staff of N.E.D.C. will be reporting to the next meeting of the Council on 6th May.

Mr. Lubbock: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to implement this recommendation of the N.E.D.C.?

Mr. Godber: Yes, the recommendation was that consideration should be given to the point. Talks between the Council staff and the Government Departments have been going on and we must await the outcome.

Mr. Prentice: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Government accept the view that all pension rights should be transferable, we shall welcome their conversion to something which the Labour Party has been saying for the last seven years?

Mr. Godber: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I would remind him of the complications in this field. In particular, in a field where the provision of these additional pensions is voluntary, one has to look carefully at making compulsory the change-over of those pensions since one might discourage the provision of the pensions themselves.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government Departments should give a lead? Is he aware that if teachers leave the employment of local education authorities they lose their contributions straight away, plus half the tax rebate of recent years, even if they want to go into a pension scheme to protect themselves in the future?

Mr. Godber: Yes, this is one of the reasons why the matter is under review. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that foreign countries have not had this difficulty and that transferability of pension rights is already established in some parts of Europe? Why have the Government taken so long to consider the matter?

Mr. Godber: There is a good deal of variation, and it is right, for the reasons that I gave a moment ago, that we should have a further look at it. It would be unfortunate if we produced an effect which none of us wished for by introducing an arrangement without proper consideration.

North-East Scotland

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Minister of Labour what records he maintains of men who have had to leave the north-east of Scotland in the last 10 years to find work elsewhere and who would be willing to return provided suitable employment could be obtained near their old homes.

Mr. Godber: Records of this kind are maintained in connection with the resettlement transfer scheme, under which a man may exercise an option to return home as soon as suitable work becomes available for him. Other men who take employment away from home may arrange with the employment exchange to be kept informed about any suitable vacancies that arise in their home area.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that in many parts of the country depopulation is as serious a problem as unemployment—in fact, more serious, because there is a tendency for it to be masked? There is an unwilling migration on the part of many people who are unable to find work in a particular area. Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the north-east of Scotland the figure for 1962–63 was 2,600?

Mr. Godber: Yes, I know there are special problems involved here. I would point out to my hon. Friend that anyone working away from home who wishes to return to suitable work can apply at his nearest exchange to be registered for employment in his home area. He will then be notified of all suitable vacancies in that area.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that industry will be encouraged to come to this area by the closure of the railways?

Mr. Godber: I do not think that that point arises on this Question.

The Hartlepools (Construction Work)

Commander Kerans: asked the Minister of Labour, whether, in view of the shortage of labour in the civil engineering industry in certain areas of this country, he will take measures to assist men to find jobs in road and other building work from areas of high unemployment such as The Hartlepools.

Mr. Godber: My Department circulates notified vacancies for skilled construction workers to areas of high unemployment, including The Hartlepools. There is no general shortage of other types of construction worker.

Commander Kerans: I understand from the civil and engineering world that in many areas there is a shortage of unskilled labour for road development such as is envisaged by the investment programme of the Government. Will not my right hon. Friend look into this matter again, because although firms like Yuills, of The Hartlepools, and Wimpey take up a certain amount of slack, there is still 6·3 per cent. unemployed, and I am sure that something can be done about taking up the slack?

Mr. Cadber: I recognise that there is this high degree of unemployment in my hon. and gallant Friend's constituency. On the other hand, substantial new projects are coming forward in the area and people in such areas are, naturally, reluctant to leave them if employment will be forthcoming in their own area. We have to keep the matter in review.

North-East

Mr. Woos: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed men, boys, women and girls in the North-East at the end of February; and how these figures compare with those of 12 months ago.

Mr. Godber: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT, for the dates for which it is available. The figures show that


between February 1963 and February 1964 there was an overall decrease of 36,969 in the number of unemployed. The figures for last year were, of course affected by the abnormally severe weather conditions.

Mr. Woof: Is the Minister aware that, in spite of the mild winter, which has helped to save a distressing rise in unemployment in the North-East, there is still a big gap to close? Is the Minister further aware that we have a long way to go, for the simple reason that no fresh activity has been injected into the area? In view of the recent increase in Bank Rate, and in the event of a further increase, will the right hon. Gentleman consult his right hon. Friends the responsible Ministers with a view to giving

PERSONS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED (INCLUDING TEMPORARILY STOPPED) IN THE NORTH-EAST


—
Men
Boys
Women
Girls
Total
Per cent.


10th February 1964
35,893
2,317
9,170
1,449
48,829
4·2


11th February, 1963
66,844
5,384
10,308
3,262
85,798
7·4


Change between February, 1963 and February, 1964
-30,951
-3,067
-1,138
-1,813
-36,969

Milk Factories, Dorset, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Labour how many employees of milk factories in Dorset, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall have recently become unemployed, owing to shortage of milk for manufacturing purposes.

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand from the information given by employers to our local officers that, since 1st October, 1963, between 40 and 50 persons have become unemployed in this area because of a reduction in the supply of milk for manufacturing purposes.

Mr. Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation is becoming quite serious, particularly in milk factories specialising in cheese-making, and that there is a lot of hidden unemployment as there has been virtually no cheese-making in my area since November? Will my right hon. Friend contact his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture about the position?

Mr. Whitelaw: I know that my hon. Friend asked my right hon. Friend some

an assurance that the Government will honour their pledge not to interfere with the public service investment and incentives to industry until the area is able to generate its own growth?

Mr. Godber: I have pointed out that the position is improving. Of course, it is not satisfactory—I do not say that it is—but it is definitely improving. The underlying trend is good. A number of new projects are coming forward, and even at this time of year, when there is usually an increase, there has been a fall of over 4,000 in unemployment. I think, therefore, that the underlying trend is good, and I hope that the projects which are presently coming forward will help materially.

Following is the information:

Questions on this subject, so my right hon. Friend is fully aware of my hon. Friend's point of view. I will certainly see that the additional notice of this Question is given to him.

Mr. G. Naessens

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has granted a permit to Mr. G. Naessens enabling him to work in this country on the manufacture of a serum claimed to cure leukaemia.

Mr. Godber: No. Sir. My Department has not received an application for a permit.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not a fact, however, that before Mr. Naessens can come here to manufacture the serum he must obtain a work permit? In these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman try to find out, so that hopes are not raised and then cruelly disappointed, whether Mr. Naessens is a serious scientific researcher or just a quack?

Mr. Godber: This is a hypothetical matter at the moment, but I accept what the hon. Member has said in this


regard. Of course, it will depend very much on the circumstances whether Mr. Naessens will be employed or would have some provision whereby he would be in the position, as it were, of a self-employed man with a grant. I do not know what the circumstances are and, therefore, I cannot judge this matter in advance.

Mr. K. Robinson: Will the Minister take great care that, if an application is made, he does not encourage the inculcation of false hopes in the parents of children suffering from leukaemia and among leukaemia sufferers themselves? Will he also bear in mind that this gentleman has certain charges pending against him in the French courts?

Mr. Godber: Yes. The hon. Member will, I am sure, realise that there is a division of functions in this matter. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has responsibility in regard to anyone coming into the country. I have responsibility in the granting of work permits. Obviously, I will keep in close touch with my right hon. Friend and with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. I accept the point made by the hon. Member.

Mr. K. Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, if he has to consider this matter, he should not prevent the "brain drain" working in reverse?

Mr. Godber: I take note of my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the purpose to which it seems that this serum has to be directed, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will require to be subjected to some scientific or medical test before it can be manufactured?

Mr. Godber: This is getting considerably beyond the terms of the Question. I will discuss these matters with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. That is the best way.

School Leavers

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Minister of Labour the number of Christmas school leavers who are still unemployed, and the number of Christmas school leavers who are now in employment, in the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Mr. Whitelaw: Out of 223 Christmas school leavers, 16 were still registered as unemployed on 10th February. Statistics are not available to show how many are now in employment but in the three months, December to February, a total of 252 young people entered first employment. Most of these were Christmas school leavers.

Mr. Montgomery: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply and agreeing that the figures are much better than they were year ago, may I ask him to bear in mind that there is still great concern about young people being unemployed in the Newcastle area and that a lot of us feel that if there were better training facilities in the area for these young people this would be a step in the right direction? Has my hon. Friend's Ministry any plans for improving the training facilities in Newcastle?

Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. As to the prospects, unemployment among both boys and girls has fallen and the number of vacancies is increasing, so the position is certainly improving. With regard to training facilities, my hon. Friend will. I think, appreciate that they are quite considerable at the Government training centre at Felling, and also at the Government training centre at Tursdale.

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Labour how many school leavers, young people and adult workers were shown as temporarily and wholly unemployed in each year from 1951 to 1963, and up to the latest convenient date; and how unemployment benefit corresponded with the national average weekly wage over the same period.

Mr. Whitelaw: As the Answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been stated that the average weekly wage is about £16 per week? When a person loses his job through no fault of his own, the Government of the day expect that unemployed worker to exist on one-fifth of the average weekly wage. Is it not time that the subsistence scales were increased to bring them up to something like a basic national average wage?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman should study the figures which I am circulating. He will appreciate that the level of benefit is a matter for my right

—
Numbers registered as wholly unemployed and temporarily stopped in Great Britain
Unemployment Benefit Rates
Average gross weekly earnings Men aged 21 and over*


School-leavers
Young Persons
Adults
Man
Man and wife
Man,† wife and two children


W.U.
W.U.
T.S.
W.U.
T.S.








£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1951
3,800
8,900
900
224,300
15,000
1
6
0
2
2
0
2
9
6
8
6
0


1952
6,300
13,300
4,900
309,100
80,700
1
12
6
2
14
0
3
7
0
8
18
6


1953
6,200
11,500
800
302,200
21,300
1
12
6
2
14
0
3
7
0
9
9
2


1954
5,700
10,300
600
255,600
12,600
1
12
6
2
14
0
3
7
0
10
4
5


1955
4,200
8,400
900
200,500
18,200
2
0
0
3
5
0
4
0
0
11
2
11


1956
3,700
8,500
1,000
217,400
26,400
2
0
0
3
5
0
4
0
0
11
17
11


1957
5,200
10,500
500
278,800
17,500
2
0
0
3
5
0
4
0
0
12
11
7


1958
8,300
16,400
2,200
385,400
45,100
2
10
0
4
0
0
5
2
0
12
16
8


1959
11,700
17,800
1,200
415,000
29,500
2
10
0
4
0
0
5
2
0
13
10
9


1960
8,600
13,000
400
324,100
14,300
2
10
0
4
0
0
5
2
0
14
10
8


1961
7,100
12,200
800
292,800
27,800
2
17
6
4
12
6
5
19
6
15
6
10


1962
13,100
21,900
1,200
396,900
30,100
2
17
6
4
12
6
5
19
6
15
17
3


1963
18,300
29,800
2,100
472,500
50,600
3
7
6
5
9
0
7
1
0
16
14
11


10th February, 1964
4,500
22,300
400
428,900
7,900














W.U. = wholly unemployed.


T.S. = temporarily stopped.


Unemployment figures (except February, 1964) are annual averages.


* Benefit and earnings figures relate to the position in October of each year.


† A man with a wife and two children also receives family allowances of 8s. per week (5s. per
week up to 1st September, 1952).

Consett and Stanley

Mr. Stones: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed at the last available date in the employment exchange areas of Consett and Stanley, Co. Durham.

Mr. Whitelaw: 517 and 814.

Mr. Stones: While I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and am appreciative that there is a downward trend in the rate of unemployment in the Consett exchange area, is the hon. Gentleman aware of a gradual upward trend in the Stanley exchange area, despite the fact that many miners and their families have left the area for work in other parts? Is he further aware of the increasing resentment which is being felt by my constituents and myself at the failure of the Government to remedy this appalling situation?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is true, as the hon. Members says, that unemployment in

hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

Following is the table of Figures:

Stanley and Lanchester was slightly higher in February than in January. I think the hon. Member knows very well of the plans which the Government have made for the North-East. I am sure that Consett and the areas around will benefit from these.

Mr. Stones: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed juveniles in the employment exchange areas of Consett and Stanley, Co. Durham at the last convenient date; and how many of these have been given the opportunity of training in industry.

Mr. Whitelaw: On 10th February, 61 boys and girls were registered as unemployed at Consett Youth Employment Office and 105 at Stanley. I cannot say how many have had opportunities for training in industry, but four boys at Consett and four at Stanley have previously held jobs with training.

Mr. Stones: Will the Minister bear in mind that, although the figures which he


has just given are relatively low, it is because the Christmas term school-leaving was abolished in my constituency last year and that there will be an upsurge of numbers leaving school at the end of the current Easter term? Will the Minister do his utmost to ensure that places will be found for these boys and girls in industry and in the various training establishments?

Mr. Whitelaw: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall certainly do our best. Suitable boys in Consett and Stanley can be admitted to first-year apprentice training courses at Tursdale Government Training Centre. The total number of places for boys has been increased from 24 to 48. Eleven boys from Consett and Stanley are there already under training, while 10 more are likely to be considered for admission to the next class, to begin in April. Five of these were among the February unemployed.

St. Helens

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Labour what is the percentage of unemployed women over the age of 18 years, and young people below the age of 18 years, respectively, who are now signing the register for work at the St. Helens employment exchange; and if he will consider the provision of a Ministry of Labour training centre in the St. Helens district for those young people prepared to make use of such a facility.

Mr. Whitelaw: The information in answer to the first part of the Question is not available. My right hon. Friend does not consider the provision of a Government training centre in St. Helens would be justified, and in any case Government training centres do not normally provide training for young persons except those sponsored under the first-year apprentice training scheme.

Mr. Spriggs: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that young people who have left school in the last few years and have never had a job since lobbied hon. Members only a short while ago appealing for jobs? Will he not reconsider his reply and see what can be done to steer these young people into jobs which are worth having and not into blind-alley jobs into which they will be compelled to go nothing is done for them?

Mr. Whitelaw: During 1963, the percentage of boys from St. Helens entering first employment and obtaining apprenticeships was 32·6 per cent. This was not as good as was hoped, but nevertheless it is worth stating the figure. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Liverpool Government Training Centre is within normal daily travelling distance of the St. Helens area

Temporary Employment (Displaced Workers)

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Minister of Labour whether he now keeps any record of the skills and training of men forced to leave their homes through temporary unemployment.

Mr. Godber: Documents describing the skill and experience of all men who register for employment are kept by employment exchanges for at least five years after action on the current registration is completed. Accordingly, if a man again registers for employment at any exchange within that period his documents will be consulted and he will be informed of suitable vacancies in any part of the country to which he is willing to go.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the first reaction to further employment being provided in an area like mine consists of applications from hundreds of men who have had to leave the area in previous years because of lack of employment? Is it, therefore, not desirable for prospective employers in such areas to have an easily obtainable record of the skills and training that would be available to them with the return of such men?

Mr. Godber: I think that, where there are firm applications from these men, it is a point to be borne in mind. It is true that in a number of cases men who have moved away are not so anxious to return unless there is something definite to come back to. We shall always seek to keep a balance.

Sir John MacLeod: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is far too much seasonal employment in the North-East of Scotland and that we do not want our men to go away? What is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage more permanent employment?

Mr. Godber: There is, indeed, seasonal employment, which is unavoidable in certain types of work in the area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is well aware of these matters and is seeking to do what he can.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman says that people are willing to go back only if there is the possibility of something definite. Can he tell us, from the figures of the resettlement officers, how many people have gone back to the north-east of Scotland?

Mr. Godber: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question to that effect, I will do my best to answer him.

Wales, Glamorgan and Barry

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Labour (1) how many persons were unemployed in Wales, in Glamorgan and in Barry, respectively, at

—
Wales
Glamorgan
Barry


Unemployed
Outstanding Vacancies
Unemployed
Outstanding Vacancies
Unemployed
Outstanding Vacancies


February, 1964
28,532
8,552
14,472
4,712
713
116


February, 1963
58,547
4,683
26,798
2,456
1,224
46

London Transport (Wages and Conditions)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Labour what conclusions he has reached over the report of the official inquiry into London Transport's wages, conditions and service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I have just received the Report, and I will make a statement in due course.

Mr. Dudley Smith: While I have not, of course, seen this Report, is my right hon. Friend aware that I believe that it may well contain recommendations for the increased efficiency of London Transport? Will he bear in mind that the public regard increased efficiency as of paramount importance, particularly since the workers have recently had a

the latest convenient date; and how these figures compare with the figures for 12 months ago; (2) how many notified vacancies there were in Wales, Glamorgan and Barry, respectively, at the latest convenient date; and how these figures compare with those of jobs unfilled a year ago.

Mr. Whitelaw: As the reply consists of a table of figures, will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gower: Can my hon. Friend say anything now about the trends in the period?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am glad to say that there has been an appreciable decrease in unemployment and an increase in outstanding vacancies in these areas. But my hon. Friend will remember that unemployment was affected last February by unfavourable weather conditions.

Following is the information:

wages increase, there has been an increase in fares and there is now a report of a further increase?

Mr. Godber: I note what my hon. Friend says. We had better await publication of the Report before we comment.

Northern Region

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Labour how many young persons in the Northern Region had been enrolled in training schemes under his Department at the end of January, 1964.

Mr. Godber: Eighty-two young persons were attending first year apprenticeship training courses in the Northern Region at the end of January, 1964.

Mr. Owen: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that this is totally inadequate in relation to the problem of


school-leavers and youth unemployment in the area. Is he aware that, according to my information, in South-East Northumberland at the moment some 42 per cent. of the school-leavers likely to leave this year will do so at Easter and that there are no jobs available for them? Is he further aware that there are no training facilities available either? Will he be good enough to examine carefully and urgently the facilities now available in Ashington and Morpeth for the establishment of a training centre for these young people?

Mr. Godber: The Ministry provides the first-year apprenticeship training courses as an example to employers of the type of first-year apprenticeship training, that should be carried out. They are not intended with the idea of absorbing all those unemployed. That is not the purpose. But, apart from what the Ministry is doing, about 1,000 boys last year began first-year apprenticeship courses and pre-apprenticeship courses at technical colleges in the region. That is the other side of the coin. It is significant that the number of unemployed young persons in the area is substantially down while the number of vacancies has risen substantially. I am sure that the trend is improving.

Mr. Owen: Surely the right hon. Gentleman recognises that even the number of existing training centres is inadequate. When he speaks of the possibility of utilising available services at technical colleges, will he look at the provisions of Ashington Technical College to see whether it could not be used as a training centre for the young people of the area?

Mr. Godber: I have discussed with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education whether there could be an expansion of what is being provided in technical colleges for this purpose, and I will be glad to look at the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Building Operations (Accidents)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour how many accidents occurred in building operations during 1963.

Mr. Whitelaw: The provisional total of reported accidents in the construction industry during 1963 was 28,377 com-

pared with 25,338 in 1962. A full analysis will be published later in the year in the Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories for 1963.

Mr. Boyden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these are highly unsatisfactory figures and trends? What is he doing to encourage reasonable-sized arms to appoint safety officers? What is he doing to ensure that more care is taken to prevent this serious toll?

Mr. Whitelaw: We have taken a great deal of trouble, as has the industry itself. It is true that the construction industry has had a high number of accidents for a long time, but in the last few years there have been signs of a welcome spread of interest and activity in accident prevention. Although the overall figures are, to some extent, disappointing, it is worth noting that the reward of all this extra activity and interest is to be seen now. For instance, there was a decrease of 15 per cent. in the number of fatal accidents reported in the construction industry during 1963. We and the industry are doing all in our power to improve the position.

Mr. Prentice: We welcome the spread of interest in safety, but surely what has happened is that certain good firms are prepared to read literature and attend conferences and it is firms which will not take the trouble which are to a very large extent responsible for these very alarming trends. Does not this mean that such firms will have to be inspected more strictly and that this will involve a larger Factory Inspectorate?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have had a considerable amount to do with this work in the last 18 months, and I have noticed that in that period there has been a considerable increase in activity among a growing number of firms. We are now perhaps reaching the end of those firms who are really interested in the problem and coming to those firms which it will be more difficult to interest. I believe that the best way to spread interest is through such things as construction regulations and courses for safety supervisors. That these will have an increasing effect.

Mr. Lawson: What steps are taken to publicise the record of good firms as against bad firms?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point and I should like to look into it. I will certainly let him know about it.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour what is his estimate of the number of accidents in building operations which are not reported.

Mr. Whitelaw: A comparison with claims for Industrial Injuries benefit in October, 1962, indicated that some 57 per cent. of the reportable accidents in the construction industries were not then being reported. Since publicity was given to this fact the number of reported accidents has increased. A survey to be undertaken this year will show the current rate of reporting.

Mr. Boyden: Does not that Answer show how unsatisfactory the Answer to Question No. 28 was? Will the hon. Gentleman give consideration to enlarging the Factory Inspectorate and also specialising it in building operations so that it can take over the work of local authorities and inspect the actual fabric of buildings and engage in safety work as well? I would be the first to agree that prosecution is not the way to bring about a reduction in the number of accidents. However, if there were a good and efficient Factory Inspectorate covering all spheres, would that not be a major contribution to bringing about a reduction in the number of accidents?

Mr. Whitelaw: Although the number of accidents which have not been reported is unsatisfactory, it inevitably remains true that if the standard of reporting is higher and more of the accidents which occur are reported the number of reported accidents tends to rise. To a very large extent this accounts for the rise indicated in my Answer to Question No. 28. I think that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a fair point. As to the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is true that inspection can help and has a very important part to play. While I consider many factory inspectors to be highly qualified in building operations, inspection is certainly not the whole answer.

Mr. Prentice: Does not the hon. Gentleman's Answer confirm that there is a hard core of firms which either do not know or do not care what the law says about these matters? Is not the

only answer for them a much more stringent system of inspection?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is true to some extent. I remind the hon. Gentleman that to meet this very point my right hon. Friend has had a leaflet prepared setting out in simple language the legal requirements and the procedure for observing them. This leaflet will be distributed free to every building contractor with the Ministry of Public Building and Works building census forms in about six weeks' time. It is bound to do something towards education.

Shift Working

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the effects of night and shift work amongst many workers, particularly on health and domestic happiness; and if he will state the number engaged on such work compared with ten years ago, together with other relevant information.

Mr. Godber: I am not aware that shift work either by day or by night has any significant effects on health, although it can have some social disadvantages; against these must be set the economic benefits resulting from the more productive use of equipment. An inquiry carried out by my Department in 1954 and covering manufacturing and certain other industries showed that about 670,000 out of 5½ million manual workers in these industries were employed on shift work. I regret that later information is not available.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that the first part of his reply is contradicted by the Medical Research Council's Report of 1963, which showed that 42 per cent. of the men interviewed were unable to get enough sound sleep during the day and many suffered from loss of appetite, upset digestion or, in some cases, complete breakdown? As night work and shift work are spreading, will he set up a new inquiry to consider the facts?

Mr. Godber: I am prepared to consider that. However, it must be recognised that in certain industries a degree of this kind of working is inevitable. It is a question of the amount of supervision, and possibly medical supervision, which ought to take place as a safeguard


against the things to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Allaun: I thank the Minister for that sympathetic reply, and I hope that he will go further into this matter. Is he aware, however, that many of these efficiency wallahs are bursting with enthusiasm about night work, but they would think very differently if they had to do it themselves?

Mr. Godber: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. We sometimes have to experience night work in the House.

Middlesbrough

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons under 18 years of age were unemployed in Middlesbrough at the end of January; and how many of these have failed to get work since 1st August, 1962.

Mr. Godber: On 10th February, 293 boys and girls were unemployed. Four of these had had no employment since August, 1962.

Mr. Bottomley: Does the Minister agree that it is very unsatisfactory that young people should have been unemployed for so long? Is he aware that there is a drift of these young people to London? This is causing concern to the parents. Will he take steps to ensure that work is found for these young people on Tees-side?

Mr. Godber: I recognise that the present position is still not satisfactory, although it is showing a marked improvement. The figure of young people unemployed fell from about 650 in October down to the present level. As to the four who have been unemployed for so long, there are special reasons, including health reasons, which account for that.

Teaching Machines

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will set up a working group with representatives from the employers, trade unions and further education to devise programmes suitable for branching teaching machines, with a view to submitting such programmes to relevant industrial training boards.

Mr. Godber: I share the hon. Gentleman's belief in the potential value of

teaching machines. I do not think, however, that I should anticipate the views of the Central Training Council which I shall be setting up under the Act, and whose duty it will be to advise me on such matters.

Mr. Dalyell: Without wishing to be-labour one of the efficiency wallahs of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), would the Minister send a delegation to the firm which I named in a private letter to him on 4th March?

Mr. Godlier: My Department is taking considerable interest in these matters. I will certainly take note of the firm the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I reiterate my own interest in this matter.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Labour how many branching teaching machines are installed in Government retraining centres.

Mr. Godber: None, Sir. But I appreciate the potentialities of these machines and my officers are studying their possible application to the types of instruction undertaken by my Ministry.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to stimulate the use of branching teaching machines, closed-circuit television and other new techniques in industrial training and whether he will organise a study of there techniques.

Mr. Godber: The Government are assisting a number of research projects into the use of new techniques of education and instruction and I shall certainly see that the results are brought to the attention of the Central Training Council and of training boards as seems appropriate.

Mr. Prentice: Is the right hon. Gentleman building up within his Ministry—or is it being done in the Ministry of Education—a system of continuing research into these techniques, so that the spread of industrial training can be aided at all stages by the latest developments of this kind?

Mr. Godber: The Ministry of Education is in close touch with developments in this field and is itself undertaking a number of research projects. In addition, the D.S.I.R. is supporting


research projects at Aberdeen University, Enfield College of Technology and Sheffield University. There is a considerable amount going on and we are keeping in the closest touch with it.

Mr. Dalyell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problem is to find a sufficient market to make it worth the while of firms to carry out these developments?

Mr. Godber: I should be glad to look at any comments the hon. Gentleman cares to make in relation to that.

Bank Employees (Staff Representation)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made by his Department in their efforts to promote more satisfactory procedures for staff representation in the banks.

Mr. Godber: As I told the House on 20th January, my officers have discussed matters arising from Lord Cameron's Report with the organisations concerned and I met the chairmen of the four banks directly concerned in the inquiry on 5th March. They were not prepared to agree that the National Union of Bank Employees should have the right to make oral representations to them as suggested by Lord Cameron. I propose to ask representatives of the union and of the Central Council of Bank Staff Associations to meet me at an early date to discuss other matters arising out of the Report.

Mr. Prentice: What is the Minister's own attitude in all this? Is it satisfactory that even the rather moderate recommendation of Lord Cameron about the right of the N.U.B.E. to oral representation is apparently still refused by the four banks concerned? Is the right hon. Gentleman simply accepting this, or doing whatever he can to make a new arrangement with the banks, pointing out to them that in this respect they are lagging behind arrangements which have existed in industry and commerce generally for a very long time?

Mr. Godber: I am engaged in following up Lord Cameron's Report to see if I can find any way in which to make progress. It would be better if I were not to say very much at this stage about how I am approaching it. We want to make progress and we have seen the Report. I should prefer it if

the hon. Gentleman would allow me to leave it there.

Mr. Lubbock: What are the arguments advanced by the banks themselves against accepting this recommendation of Lord Cameron?

Mr. Godber: On the strength of my last reply, I would prefer to try to make progress if I can. This is a difficult and delicate subject which has worried many people over a long time. Lord Cameron made a very careful and detailed report and I am trying to find some way in which to make progress. It is not easy, but I should like to try without making public comment at this time.

Accident Prevention (Young Persons)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied that the provisions of Section 21 of the Factories Act relating in particular to the supervision and training of young persons working at dangerous machines are being carried out adequately; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: So long as accidents to young persons remain at their present level, I cannot be satisfied with the situation. In the course of my Department's round of discussions with industry in the past two years, great emphasis has been laid on the need to develop adequate training not only in the risks of particular machines but in all matters of safety. I agree that compliance with Section 21 is important but this is only one of the ways in which we deal with the problem.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at Mauchline in Scotland there is a factory whose management is refusing to re-engage all members of the supervisory staff who belong to my trade union and that the supervision at present is being done by unqualified persons? Can he do anything to deal with the case of which I think, he is aware?

Mr. Godber: I am aware of this very difficult case, but I am not cognisant of its application to the hon. Gentleman's Question. I will look into it to see if there is anything I can do, but this is not a matter which is easy of solution, for there are many feelings about it.

Mr. Rankin: My supplementary question is related to the Question, because


the use of unqualified supervisors may be a contributory factor in accidents.

Mr. Godber: I did not see it in that way, but I will consider that aspect.

Scotland

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Labour how many boys and girls in Scotland under 18 years of age have been unemployed for longer than eight weeks; what are the comparable figures for each of the other regions; and what are the similar figures for 1952.

Mr. Godber: As the reply consists of a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hamilton: With reference to the purely Scottish figures, will the Minster say whether, judged by the figure for 1952 and the current figure, the Government are satisfied that they have now got a solution to the problem? Are not these figures a tragic commentary on our failure so to organise society as to ensure employment for these young people? Is it not a disgrace that so many thousands of them are unemployed and have been unemployed over the years? Virtually no impact has been made on the solution of this problem by any policy proposed so far by the Government.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman will be able to see the figures. The table shows that 2,596 young people in Scotland have been unemployed for over eight weeks at present. This is substantially more than the figure for 1952. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that no fewer than 40,000 young people have entered first employment in Scotland since last August. Despite this, the number of vacancies there is higher now than it was then. The position is improving in these areas and, although it has been unsatisfactory, I am hopeful that it will improve further.

Lord Dalkeith: When my right hon. Friend circulates the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT, will he give the figures for 1947?

Mr. Godber: I am afraid that is another question. If my hon. Friend would table a Question to that effect, I should be very happy to comply with his request.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to circulate that figure, in deference to the noble Lord's request? Is not the Minister aware that that figure will bear out what I said in my earlier supplementary question? Has the gap between the Scottish figure and the figure for the other regions worsened or improved since 1952?

Mr. Godber: Much as I sympathise with the degree of understanding between the two sides of the House on this, I am afraid that I cannot circulate that figure now. This Question will have to go forward on the present information but another Question can be tabled asking for that figure. The hon. Gentleman should study the figures when he sees them. It is difficult at random to say precisely how percentages vary ever the years.

Following is the information:

YOUNG PERSONS UNDER 18 YEARS REGISTERED AS WHOLLY UNEMPLOYED FOR OVER 8 WEEKS


Region
February, 1964


Boys
Girls


Scotland
…
1,623
973


London and South Eastern
…
142
126


Eastern and Southern
…
160
188


South western
…
129
255


Midlands
…
126
134


Yorks and Lincs
…
193
200


North Western
…
574
332


Northern
…
1,165
684


Wales
…
307
422

Trenching Operations (Accidents)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Labour how many casualties resulting from cave-ins during trenching operations took place during the years 1960 to 1963.

Mr. Godber: The numbers of reported accidents on excavation work for the last four years were: 173 in 1960; 178 in 1961; 211 in 1962 and 185 in 1963. This last figure is still provisional. Accidents due to cave-ins during trenching operations are not separately recorded

Mr. Manuel: Have not these accident rates gone on unchecked for far too long? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many deaths are included in this number of casualties in the building and allied industries? Will he now take steps—hitherto not taken by his Ministry—to make compulsory the provision of protective equipment during deep trenching?

Mr. Godber: The fatal accidents in those years were 17, 13, 19 and 16, respectively. Requirements about excavation of deep trenches are contained in the Construction (General provisions) Regulations, 1961, which have been in operation since March 1962. What we need, as my hon. Friend was saying earlier in another respect, is more publicity about construction work generally, so as to bring home to those concerned the dangers which exist.

Mr. Manuel: How many prosecutions have there been for offences against those regulations? Will not the right hon. Gentleman stress that machinery should be used for excavation wherever possible, so that men do not have to work in trenches insufficiently safeguarded?

Mr. Godber: I do not have with me the figures for prosecutions, but I am sure that, in general, economic forces impel employers to use machinery wherever they can. I do not think that my comments are needed to reinforce that.

Glasgow

Mr. Hannan: asked the Minister of Labour how many people are unemployed in the City of Glasgow; what

percentage that figure is of the insured population; and how many have been unemployed for six months or more.

Mr. Whitelaw: There were 27,543 unemployed on 10th February. A percentage rate is not available for the City of Glasgow, but the rate for the larger area covered by the Glasgow travel-to-work group was 5·2 per cent. On 13th January, the latest date for which such an analysis is available, 9,923 of those registered in the City of Glasgow had been wholly unemployed for over 26 weeks.

Mr. Hannan: Do not these figures make complete nonsense of the Prime Minister's recent speech in Glasgow when he is alleged to have said that the solution of this problem was for Glasgow alone? Will the Parliamentary Secretary use his influence with the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development to review the bad decision made in respect of the Queenslie area in Glasgow where 90 acres are wanted by the local authority to provide employment?

Mr. Whitelaw: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "No, Sir", and the answer to the second is that I will see that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development is called to this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS (PROSECUTIONS)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Attorney-General whether he will require the Director of Public Prosecutions, in cases where he is instituting proceedings against publishers and booksellers of books first published more than 100 years ago, to proceed under Section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act, 1959, providing for trial by jury, rather than under Section 3.

The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): No. The date of first publication of a work is irrelevant to the question whether proceedings in respect of it should be taken under Section 2 or under Section 3 of the 1959 Act.

Mr. Digby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is now considerable confusion when a book like Fanny Hill is thought to be


undesirable in one part of the country but not in another? Is it not undesirable that old books, of which it could be argued that they have some historical and literary merit, should attract all the attention when a great deal of modern pornography, which does not have such arguments in its favour, does not receive enough attention?

The Attorney-General: With regard to Fanny Hill; whether it is prosecuted before a jury or not, under Section 2, does not mean that it becomes a prohibited book for the whole country. A conviction by jury has no more effect on the publication by the individual and is no more extensive in controlling other publications than would be a conviction before a magistrate. While there may be some works of antiquity which may have a historical interest, there are others in which vintage obscenity still remains obscene. The question whether it should be proceeded against before a jury or magistrate must remain to be decided on the merits of the individual case and not solely on the date of the publication of the work.

Mr. Lipton: Is anything being done about the English translation used by schoolboys of Petronius's Satyricon? Are we getting to that yet?

The Attorney-General: Not that I am aware of.

Mr. Dudley Smith: In view of the publication last week of the B.M.A.'s booklet on young people's morals, would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the more controls there are against near-pornography the better?

The Attorney-General: One of the difficulties of all prosecutions is that they sometimes attract a great deal of attention to a work which is better left to look after itself.

FAROESE FISHING LIMIT

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. WALL: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to the

Danish Government's declared intention unilaterally to extend the Faroese fishing limit to 12 miles after 11th March, 1964.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Mathew): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Question No 56.
The House will recall that the Danish Government gave notice terminating the Anglo-Danish Agreement of 1959 from 28th of April last. Negotiations a year ago for a new agreement proved unsuccessful and on 5th April the Danish Government declared their intention to apply a 12 mile limit measured from straight baselines to British fishing vessels after 11th March, 1964.
Her Majesty's Government expressed their surprise and deep regret at the Danish Government's action and fully reserved their rights. My right hon. Friend reiterated these views to the Danish Government in the course of his recent visit to Copenhagen.
At the European Fisheries Conference, which has just concluded, a wide measure of agreement was reached on a Fisheries Convention, which would, with its special provisions for areas in which the local population is overwhelmingly dependent upon coastal fisheries, have secured in the view of Her Majesty's Government a fair and reasonable balance between the interests of Faroese coastal fishermen and British fishermen who have traditionally fished around the Faroes.
However, the Danish Government were unable to agree to the application of the Convention to the Faroes and adhere to their decision to exclude British vessels from the 12-mile zone at the Faroes after 11th March. This is a matter of great regret to Her Majesty's Government, since in our view there is room in these waters both for Faroese fishermen and for British fishermen, for whom these grounds, in which they have fished for over 50 years, are of great importance.
In these circumstances, the Danish Government, have been informed that Her Majesty's Government are unable to recognise the new fishery limits at the Faroes We shall not, however, oppose their enforcement by the Danish authorities. This decision is accepted


by the British fishing industry. Discussions have taken place with the authorities in Copenhagen on the practical measures necessary to minimise the risk of unpleasant incidents occurring after 11th March off the Faroes.

Mr. Wall: White very much regretting this decision of the Danish Government, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he would agree that this unilateral declaration wholly justifies the industry's imposition of a quota on Faroese landings? Will my hon. Friend continue to do what he can to persuade the Faroese that it will be in their best interests to sign the recently negotiated convention?

Mr. Mathew: Action by the industry is primarily a matter for the industry itself, and the Government could not intervene.
Perhaps I might draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in connection with this matter my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) has tabled a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Her Majesty's Government are ready at any time to reopen negotiations to try to get some settlement of this matter.

Mr. Peart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are anxious that negotiations should be reopened? Can he say what is the Government's attitude towards the industry's desire to have a quota system? Are the Government against it, or for it?

Mr. Mathew: I think that the hon. Gentleman must await the Answer of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but in the circumstances one can fully understand the attitude of the industry.

Mr. Peart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we need not await the reply of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? The Government have made up their mind. Why cannot the House be given some information now?

Mr. Mathew: I understand that the Question is being answered today. As I said, in the circumstances, one can understand the attitude of the industry.

Dame Irene Ward: Would not it be a good idea if, for once, the Government

would associate themselves with the industry in the view that it takes? Is it not a fact that the trawler industry has to fight a grave and difficult battle? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I regard it as annoying of the Government not to say that they will associate themselves with the industry? I am a bit sick of all this "it is not our job, it is your job" business.

Mr. Mathew: I have already said that I cannot anticipate the Answer which my right hon. Friend will give, but I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are extremely concerned about the position. The Royal Naval Fishery Protection Squadron will patrol the area of the Faroes for the time being after 11th March.

Mr. Grimond: May I ask the hon. Gentleman first, whether he is aware that one result of this may be considerably increased fishing of other grounds, with possibly deleterious results on the stocks at those grounds? Secondly, can the hon. Gentleman clarify what will happen in the Faroese grounds? He says that our fishery protection vessels will be there. He also says that the Government do not recognise the decision taken by the Danish Government, but that they will not interfere with the Faroese fishery cruisers enforcing it. What are our fishery cruisers going to do in the Faroese grounds?

Mr. Mathew: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Royal Navy is at all times under standing orders to protect British lives. The object of patrolling will be to avoid unpleasant incidents of the sort that have occurred in the past and to maintain an atmosphere in which it will be possible to reopen negotiations at a future date.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman go a little further on that? If the British Government do not recognise the 12-mile limit, and if the British Navy is in Faroese waters to protect British lives and British fishermen fish within the 12-mite limit, what action will the Navy take to safeguard the rights of fishermen to fish inside that limit?

Mr. Mathew: I think that the main object at the moment is to avoid any incidents in the early stages which could make it impossible to come to an agreement. I have already said that the


Royal Navy is at all times under standing orders to protect British lives. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can expect me to specify what action Royal Navy vessels may take in any possible eventuality. That is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Ross: Without wishing to impinge on the Navy Estimates, surely we are in a serious position, because if British fishermen do what they want to do, and what they feel they have a traditional right to do, that is, to fish within these limits, they will not be breaking any law. The Government have said that they do not recognise what the Danes have done, but they say that at the moment they will not prevent the Danes from enforcing their own law. The only thing that that can mean is that to prevent incidents our protection vessels will keep our fishermen out of these waters. Is not that the case? Would not it have been better if, before making this announcement, the Government had got together with the industry and agreed on a satisfactory new initiative on this matter?

Mr. Mathew: I have already described to the House what the function of the patrols will be. I think that the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that although we are not intending to oppose enforcement by the Danish authorities, this decision is accepted by the British fishing industry.

NAVY ESTIMATES (PRESENTATION)

Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make to the House.
The House will recall that at the end of our discussions on the Lords Amendments to the Defence (Transfer of Functions) Bill the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asked me to rule, at my convenience, whether or no the form in which the Navy Estimates were presented was accurate.
I undertook to consider what the hon. Gentleman said. I have done so, and my conclusion is that, upon both constitutional and procedural grounds, I must forgo any wish to meet the hon. Member's request. I will explain why.
What we received was a Royal demand for Supply, that is to say, that, after we

had been warned by words in the Gracious Speech to expect Estimates to be presented, Estimates were, by the responsible Minister, presented to the House by "Command of Her Majesty."
It is not for the Speaker—even were the Estimates still to be now within my field of responsibility—to pronounce upon the terms in which Her Majesty's request to us is expressed. But the Estimates are not. Any action of this House, upon a Royal request for Supply, must—in accordance with one of the oldest and most fundamental rules of our Constitution—be begun in Committee, so that the Estimates were in the normal course of financial procedure referred to the Committee of Supply and they had been so referred before the hon. Member addressed his request to me.
In such circumstances it would be quite improper for me to attempt to say anything more in answer to the hon. Member.

Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it that it would be in order to raise this matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means in Committee?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will understand that it is a very important ancient rule that I have cited. It means that Mr. Speaker must not, at this stage, interfere in any way or he would be outraging the constitutional rule by which we go.

Mr. Shinwell: This point was raised originally with the Chairman of Ways and Means in Committee. In view of the fact that the Chairman rejected the submission made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and myself, namely, that what the Estimates provided for was the anticipation of a decision that can be taken only by the Minister of Defence when the Bill becomes law, is not this a matter to be referred to the House, and in those circumstances does not the responsibility rest upon you, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No, it does not. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, what happened before anything was raised with me was that the Estimates, which are a matter to be dealt with by the Committee, had already been referred to the Committee of Supply in


the ordinary course of the financial procedure. I must remain out and above at all stages now.

Mr. Ross: When this matter is raised with the Chairman, in Committee, will he ignore the action which you took the other night, Mr. Speaker? When the question was raised on the Adjournment of the House you proceeded to put the Question without any further debate. You could do so only on your judgment that the raising of the Motion was an abuse of the House. It will be very difficult for us to raise a substantive point when, by implication, you have already given such a Ruling.

Mr. Speaker: That has no bearing on the Chairman's view, in any way. I was ruling in the circumstances in which I ruled, and those circumstances had nothing to do with the circumstances in Committee.

Mr. Wigg: Would it not be of assistance to the House, and would it not also save you from embarrassment, Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the House—if not today, perhaps tomorrow—made a statement to the effect that the Government recognise that they have made a mistake and have inadvertently misled the House by not taking into account the full circumstances, and will withdraw the Estimates and submit them in a proper and correct form?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's observations do not raise any point of order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[11TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES, 1964–65, AND ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1963–64; DEFENCE (ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES) ESTIMATE, 1964–65; DEFENCE (ARMY) PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES ESTIMATE, 1964–65; DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1964–65, AND AIR SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1963–64; DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1964–65

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES, 1964–65

Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Army

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £156,610,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: On a point of order, in connection with the Estimates, Sir William. We shall be taking at a later stage today some of the Navy Votes, and I should like to raise this point of order now so that we shall know what the procedure is.
The question concerns the heading of Vote 3—Navy Department Headquarters. I should like to know whether the Estimates were properly presented, in view of the Amendments made by the House to the Defence (Transfer of Functions) Bill in view of the fact that there is no such Department as the Navy Board, its name now being the Admiralty Board. I ask you for your guidance in this matter. Are we being asked to vote the sum of money in respect of a Department that does not exist?

The Chairman: As I read my Order Paper, Vote 3 of the Navy Estimates is not down for discussion today.

Mr. Callaghan: It may not be down for discussion, but I take it that we shall


have to pass that Vote at some stage, and that the Committee will have to agree this estimate of money that it is asked to vote. In those circumstances, whether or not we discuss the Vote today, it would be appropriate to know whether we are being asked to vote a sum of money for a Department which never had an existence, does not have an existence, and is never going to have an existence.

The Chairman: I take the hon. Member's point, but I think that I had better confine myself to today's business—and that does not include Vote 3.

Mr. Callaghan: I know that you do not hear what Mr. Speaker said, and that you therefore start afresh, but if I were to say that this matter has already been the subject of discussion today, and that I was advised that it would be proper to raise the matter with you, perhaps it would not be impossible for you, even if you do not wish to give a Ruling now, to do so later. May I ask at what stage you will be ready to give a Ruling, before we are asked to vote this sum of money?

The Chairman: The hon. Member is putting the Chair in a position that the Chair does not really occupy in this matter. It is for the Committee to decide whether or not it will pass Vote 3 at a later stage. What is in Vote 3 is for the Committee to approve or disapprove. It is not within the power of the Chair to say whether it is or is not good enough for the Committee.

Mr. George Wigg: Would you be good enough to accept a Motion to report Progress, Sir William, to provide an opportunity for the Leader of the House or the Minister of Defence—perhaps a little later, when they have consulted—to tell the Committee what they will do to put right this mistake of the Government? Would you be kind enough to say whether—perhaps not at this moment, but a little later—you will accept a Motion such as I have suggested?

The Chairman: No, I would not be prepared to accept that Motion, because what is being questioned is not part of today's business. After today there will be an opportunity to consider it if it requires consideration.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Sir William, the fact that this Vote is not down is neither here nor there. The Estimates must be taken as a whole, and the Estimates are down on the Order Paper today, and there is no doubt that they are misleading.
I do not base my argument on a narrow technical point. I should have thought that it was the duty of any Administration—even this one—to give the House of Commons an opportunity of taking a correct decision on the basis of fact, and not anticipating legislation which has not yet become law. I assume that the Leader of the House or the Minister of Defence would have the power to live the Committee some advice. I am only trying to find a way in which they do that without embarrassment to anyone.

The Chairman: I cannot accept the contention that the Estimates are taken as a whole. On the contrary, they are taken individually—the ones specified being the numbers of the Votes that we are taking today. I must confine myself to those Votes.

Mr. Wigg: Quite arbitrarily, the Government have put down the Votes which suit them best in such a form that the Committee is unable to bring the Government to account. I repeat that I should have thought that even this Government had a vested interest in making sure that information given to the Committee was correct and that, if the Leader of the House would not discharge his primary duty to hon. Members, you, Sir William, would have accepted a Motion to report Progress and given us an opportunity of forcing him to do so.

The Chairman: No; I am afraid that I will not accept that Motion.

Mr. E. Shinwell: I wonder whether, Sir William, to enable us to proceed with the business which was intended for today, you would consider this submission. It was originally intended, apparently, that the three Votes for the Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy would be taken today. The Government, apparently, have changed their mind and only two Votes are to be taken. May we ascertain from the


Minister of Defence or the Leader of the House when the Navy Vote is to be taken?

The Chairman: I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman. According to my Order Paper, the Army Estimates are to be taken first and then come the Air Estimates and, later, the Navy Estimates.

Mr. Shinwell: If that is the case, I apologise for misunderstanding the position. In that event, surely we return to the original submission. namely, whether, when the Navy Vote is under consideration, we are to discuss the Navy or the Admiralty. What is the position?

The Chairman: The position is that we are to discuss certain Votes of the Navy Estimates, namely, Votes 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11, but the Vote which contains the Admiralty problem is Vote 3, and that is not included. I am anxious that the Committee should feel that what is on the Order Paper for today's business is correct.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that we all understand your difficulty, Sir William, but I know that you will agree that it is not right that the Committee should be denied the opportunity of raising at some stage the manner in which these Estimates are put to us.
I would ask you, as the guardian of the rights of the Opposition and the Government, in what circumstances we shall be able to raise this incorrect heading to Vote 3, "Navy Department Headquarters". There may be good reasons why the Government have not put down a Navy Department Headquarters Vote today. Perhaps they acknowledge their error and intend to put it down on another day in its correct name, which I assume will be, "Admiralty Board Headquarters". Last year it was called "Admiralty Office"—

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): The Minister of Defence (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft) indicated dissent.

Mr. Callaghan: With respect to the Minister of Defence, the Estimates last year said, "Vote 3, Admiralty Office". This year they say "Navy Department Headquarters". I assume that, in the light of the decision taken by the House, the Government will want to change the title to "Admiralty Board

Headquarters". If they do not do so, obviously they will be getting behind the decision of the House last week. I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite will want to question the Minister of Defence about this as much as we shall.
However, that is not a point for you, Sir William. What is, I think, a point for you is this. Can you advise us, before we vote this sum of money, at what stage we shall be able to inquire about the validity of the headings of this Vote and the sum of money we are being asked to pass?

The Chairman: I have never heard it contended that it was part of the duty of the Chair, or that it was within the Chair's province, to select which Votes would be debated on these occasions. That would be going beyond the Chair's powers. I should like to get on with the business on the Order Paper. It is common knowledge to the Committee that this matter has been ventilated. I do not think that I can be of any further assistance.

Mr. Callaghan: I fully understand that, Sir William. The only conclusion we can draw is that the Government have, once again, deliberately dodged a decision of the House.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order. I understand that we are debating Vote 9 of the Navy Estimates. Under the heading "Miscellaneous Payments" in that Vote there is reference to the Navy Department. Would it be in order, under that Vote, to discuss the problem of the Navy Department—whether it is Navy, Admiralty, or whatever it is?

The Chairman: I think that the hon. Member would be wise to wait and see when we get to it.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I am interested in the explanation which is given to this Supplementary Estimate. Apparently, there is a reduction and that is offset by reduced recoveries in respect of personnel on loan. Could the Under-Secretary of State tell us something about those personnel on loan and the conditions on which we loan officers? What is the position of officers from foreign States who are at Sandhurst?

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Peter Kirk): Are we on the Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Paget: Yes.

Mr. Kirk: I thought that we were on Vote 1.

The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. We had better dispose of the Question on Vote 1 before we come to the other Vote.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: As the Under-Secretary of State knows, I am more than interested in the situation of the British Army of the Rhine. We have been told on more than one occasion in recent years that the pay and allowances of B.A.O.R. involve the Treasury in certain financial problems, balance of payments difficulties and that sort of thing.
I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State how much extra it costs the British taxpayer to have British troops in Germany. I know that certain costs would be entailed wherever these troops were stationed, but it is probably more than obvious to anyone that if the British Army of the Rhine were transferred to this country, for example, there would be considerable savings in pay and allowances under this Vote. It would be of interest to British taxpayers, many of whom favour the complete withdrawal of British troops from Germany, to know how much more it is costing to keep British troops in Germany under this Vote.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to elaborate a little on the item
Receipts in respect of personnel lent to other governments
under the heading "Appropriations in aid".
I see that the sum this year is £4,610,000 as against £3,210,000 last year. This is a considerable increase. I assume that we have lent more personnel to overseas Governments. Have we met all the requests of other Governments, or are we limiting the personnel whom we supply to other Governments from our Army, now a Regular Army only? I imagine that in the case of Tanganyika, for example, there is no payment for our force which

went to Tanganyika at the request of the Tanganyikan Government, but that this payment is in respect of personnel who were there before.

4.0 p.m.

Dr. May Glyn: I have some questions to put to my hon. Friend. First, do we deal in Vote 1 with boys who are staying on an extra year, from 16 to 17, and the consequential cost this year? Secondly, what is the position as regard foreign Governments who wish either officers or other ranks to come here for periods of service? I regard this as extremely important and I do not think that finance should be a barrier. If people from Commonwealth countries can come here and go to Sandhurst and other institutions, it does a good deal to cement relationships between our forces and Commonwealth forces. I should like to an assurance from my hon. Friend that there is no financial barrier. Are there more applications from Commonwealth and foreign countries than vacancies which we can offer, or are we limited by the amount of money?
My last question relates to the Gurkhas. I notice that there has been a fall in the sum of money for the Gurkhas from last year, and I should like to hear something about this.

Mr. Kirk: I interrupted the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) on the point he was making about seconded personnel, but much the same point has arisen in the substantive debate. Perhaps I may deal with it now and give the Committee a brief outline of the arrangements for financing these secondments.
Since November, 1962, secondment of officers and other ranks to the newly independent countries of the Commonwealth are subsidised by the Commonwealth Relations Office, which meets all costs except basic pay and marriage allowance. These two elements continue to be the financial liability of the borrowing Government, that is to say, the Government taking the seconded personnel. At that time, too, it was agreed that, for ease of administration and control, all emoluments would be issued from the Service Votes, recoveries being treated as appropriations in aid. Up to that time borrowing Governments


had issued all emoluments direct to the seconded personnel. The introduction of the revised procedure was dependent upon successful negotiation of schedules of agreement between the Commonwealth Relations Office and the countries concerned.
Provision was made in the Army Estimates last year, 1963–64, on the assumption that as from 1st April, 1963, all newly independent countries would take advantage of the new arrangement. In the event, only two countries ratified the schedules of agreement, Malaysia in September, 1963, and Jamaica in December, 1963. The other countries concerned raised certain objections and as a result the schedules were not ratified.
The overall effect has been that countries other than Malaysia and Jamaica have continued to meet the emoluments of seconded personnel direct and no costs have been borne on the Army Votes. It has been necessary, therefore, to reduce the Vote this year by that amount and increase the appropriations in aid correspondingly by £1,200,000. There is no change in the net Vote on this account. That is the position as regards this Vote in the Estimates and in the Supplementary Estimates to which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton referred in his first question.

Mr. Paget: So that that may be clearly understood, it was expected that the Commonwealth Government or borrowing Government would pay us and we would pay the officer instead of their paying the officer direct, and there is no more to it than that?

Mr. Kirk: As I understand it, that is the position, yes.
The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) asked about the British Army of the Rhine. Speaking from memory, the sum is about £75 million, but I will check that and make sure that the accurate figure is sent to the hon. Gentleman.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), I do not think that there is any particular significance in the reduction of the sum for the Gurkhas. I set out the position again the other night. We are for the moment maintaining the present

Gurkha establishment and not proceeding with the run-down.

Dr. Alan Glyn: It looked from the fall in the figure as though we were making a reduction, but I realise that that is purely an accounting matter and that is why I asked the question.

Mr. Lipton: The hon. Gentleman has kindly offered to give me up-to-date figures relating to the additional cost of B.O.A.R. When he gives me those figures, will he say how much of it involves foreign currency, since this is an important matter in considering the balance of payments problem?

Mr. Kirk: I shall try to make it as explicit as I can.

Mr. Paget: There is a question which I should have asked, but did not, on the colonial and other contributions, which appear to have fallen. How much of that is Hong Kong? What is Hong Kong's contribution to its defence, and what does the defence of Hong Kong cost us? Can the hon. Gentleman give that now, or does it appear somewhere else?

Mr. Kirk: I omitted to answer the point about boys, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham. They are covered by Vote 1, but, of course, it is not an additional year; it is an extra six months' recruiting, from 17 to 17½.
Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Northampton will permit me to answer him later about Hong Kong. I think that it does come under Vote 1, Subhead E(3), as regards pay; but there is an overall defence agreement with the Government of Hong Kong, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. I have not before me at the moment exactly how the figures are broken down.

Mr. Paget: The figure which interested me a little comes under Subhead Z(3), "Colonial and other contributions". The figure has gone down by nearly £1 million. I was wondering why that had happened and whether it touched Kong Kong or not.

Mr. Kirk: I do not think that it touches Hong Kong. I will look into the point, but, speaking from memory, I think that I am right in saying that


sums in respect of the Hong Kong defence agreement have not gone down this year.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £156,610,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &amp;c., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

Vote 2. Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forcess

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £21,480,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 153,000, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 147,000 other ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 221,000, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965.

Mr. Paget: I see that the sum in respect of the Malta Territorial Force has fallen from £60,000 to £15,000. What has happened about that?

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I have several questions to ask about the Territorial Army. It is very comforting to think of the Territorial Army in the background, but a very awkward question always seems to be raised whenever we think of spending any money on it. In the first place, it seems quite extraordinary that the number of training days allowed in the Territorial Army out of the camp period has been reduced to 16. I put it very strongly to my hon. Friend that this is quite inadequate. Nowadays, if the Territorial Army is to be made efficient for its purpose, it must train and train hard. This cannot be done on a shoestring.
In the days when I was actively associated with the Territorial Army, there was no limit to the number of days on which a Territorial officer or soldier might, if he though fit, report for training. Now, because of some cheeseparing policy, it seems that the number of days out of camp has been reduced to 16.
I have tried to do some arithmetic on this subject, although it is extremely difficult to find the figures. As I understand, however, the cost of increasing the number of paid training days would be virtually negligible. From the figures

in the Estimates, it is impossible to get any idea of what it would cost, and would like my hon. Friend to give me some information about this.
The first task of the Territorial Army appears to be that of reinforcing B.A.O.R., so it must be properly equipped to do that. I understand that proper equipment is not available; that members of the Territorial Army are supposed to undertake arduous training in the depth of winter equipped only with denim clothing. I should like to know why proper clothing cannot be provided. There is still the scandal of ammunition shortage and the men are expected to work with old weapons. If they are to reinforce B.A.O.R., why cannot they be sent to train with B.A.O.R.? That has been done before. I took part in some very useful exercises in 1948, and I think that if similar activities were carried out now, the Territorial Army would obtain more benefit from its training.
I think that the idea of the "Ever-readies" was most useful and brilliant. But no practical use has been made of the "Ever-readies" and, to use an Army expression, they are becoming completely and utterly "browned off". Their training must be made more realistic and use should be made of their services. Recently, when there was trouble in Cyprus, everyone knew that the battalions which went to Cyprus were under-strength. The men in the "Ever-readies" knew this because they had friends and brothers in those regular battalions.
The men in the "Ever-readies" were also aware that they could have done a useful job in Cyprus and received some valuable training. But nothing was done and the "Ever-readies" were not called up. At present, their existence appears to be pointless and, obviously, there is a lack of keenness. I plead with my hon. Friend to do something to revive the enthusiasm which prompted these men to join the "Ever-readies".
I should like an assurance from my hon. Friend that if these men are called up to serve abroad, their employers will be obliged to re-employ them upon their return. Such a reassurance would tend to improve recruiting figures and be a comfort to the men. Naturally, the best men in the Territorial Army become


non-commissioned officers. There are a great many sergeants who would be willing to become "Ever-readies" but for the fact that the establishment for sergeants is quite small. Could these men become "Ever-readies" and, upon embodiment, revert to their former ranks? These are practical suggestions which would provide great advantages to everyone concerned.
It would be an advantage to the Territorial Army in that these men would have done a period of full-time service with the Regular Army and received more advanced training; and they could pass on their knowledge to the Territorial Army upon their return from Regular service.
I suggest bluntly to my hon. Friend that for too long the Territorial Army has been regarded as a cheap reserve. It has been forgotten until a time of dire need. It has always been run on a shoestring and that shoestring is becoming so worn that it is no longer fit to hold in the "dogbody". A man who joins the Territorial Army must be patriotic but, more important, he must like soldiering. The money inducement comes a poor third. In these days, however, a man can obtain overtime by working on Sundays and, therefore, he is put in the awkward position of having to forfeit overtime in order to give his services to the Territorial Army.
It seems to me that the War Office does not understand why a man becomes a Territorial soldier. He does it because he loves soldiering. But men cannot be expected to join the Territorial Army unless they are encouraged, and receive the proper equipment. I plead that something be done quickly to improve the training facilities for the Territorial Army.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: The Committee may recall that when the precedessor of the present Secretary of State for War introduced the scheme for "Ever-readies" it generated much excitement among hon. Members. The scheme was first announced in the House of Commons. At that time it was undoubtedly regarded as a brilliant scheme, at any rate by hon. Members opposite. There were many hon. Members on this side of the Committee who were sceptical

about its value and subsequent events have justified our scepticism. The fact is that very little is said or heard about the "Ever-readies". During the debate on the Estimates last week neither the Under-Secretary nor the Secretary of State made much reference to them. In the Supplementary Estimate there is provision for a sum concerning pay, etc., of the Territorial Army amounting to more than £4½ million. Indeed, there is a revised Estimate amounting to almost £5 million. But there is no indication of the sums to be expended on the "Ever-readies".
Not much information has yet been furnished about the nature of the training for the "Ever-readies". When the scheme was introduced I understood that it was intended that the "Ever-readies" were to be the "spearhead" of the Territorial Army. They were to receive bounties, allowances and pay in excess of that received by the ordinary members of the Territorial forces. The conception was that they were to be available to support the Regular Army.
If the Under-Secretary rejects that view, I should be very ready to listen to what he has to say. I think that hon. Members who heard the debate on that occasion would agree that that was the original concept. But the War Department has departed from it and, so far as we know, no attempt is being made to build up the "Ever-readies". We all know why. So much for that. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will reply later.
The question of training is one with which I have concerned myself ever since I was associated with the War Office. When I was Secretary of State for War I was concerned with a campaign to build up the Territorial Army. We decided to have a march through the City of London, bringing in some of the battalions from the Home Counties. I also wanted to bring in one of the Highland battalions, to have pipers marching at their head. The Lord Mayor of the day was to take the salute. Everything was in train when one day the Director General of the Territorial Army came to see me. I was informed that the battalions which were originally to participate in the march would not be available, and it was impossible to proceed.
I listened with attention and then said to him, "I shall tell you how it should


be done". He asked me to explain and I said, "Just go and do it". He went away and it was done. We had our march through the City of London. I was present on the dais where the Lord Mayor took the salute. There was considerable interest in the City of London and some measure of enthusiasm. What the results in increased enlistment to the Territorial force were, I cannot recall.
I make these observations to indicate the interest displayed in the matter of building up the Territorial force. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) on one occasion indulged in a mild rebuke to me because of some remarks I made about the Territorial force. In spite of statements made by those associated with the Territorial and auxiliary forces, I have never discovered, apart from most perfunctory intermittent training of an ineffective character, and, of course, social advantages in being associated with the Territorial Army—there are social advantages and prestige in being associated with the Territorial Army and I say nothing derogatory to the officers and ranks—whether we have yet succeeded in building up an effective and efficient Territorial Army.
It was believed that that might come about as a result of the "Ever-readies" scheme. We are entitled to hear from the Under-Secretary what has happened about the "Ever-readies", how they are getting on and what is the nature of their training. We might hear something about their emoluments in order to ascertain whether their emoluments are consistent with their training, and vice versa. Unless we get that information there will continue to be some dissatisfaction with the building up of this section of the Territorial forces.
Having raised a matter of some importance, I want to raise a matter which may be regarded as trivial and of minor importance in the opinion of hon. Members because it concerns only my constituency. I notice that expenditure on the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations amounts to £6,810,000. That is quite a lot of money. The Associations are in charge of Territorial depots and drill halls. In the town of Horden, in my constituency, which is a mining township, there is a drill hall. A little time ago I was asked by the director of a youth organisation if I would

intervene on its behalf with the War Office because the organisation had requested that a jazz band which it organised should have facility for training, indulging in, presumably, musical exercises in the drill hall. I intervened with the War Office as requested only to find that my submission should have been made to the headquarters of the Durham Territorial Forces Association.
I approached that Association and was told that no such facilities could be provided. The only people who could be accommodated in a Territorial drill hall for any purpose were those who were members of the Territorial force. It often happens that these drill halls are unoccupied and not being used for training purposes. I should have thought that as a means of creating some interest in the Territorial Army and possibly inducing some of the younger males associated with these organisations to join the Territorial force, such accommodation could be provided in this way, but the request was turned down flat. There is considerable discontent among the members of the youth organisation in consequence of that refusal.
It seems that the War Office has some responsibility in a matter of this sort. It must not be left entirely to the wishes or caprice of the great panjandrums of the Territorial force either in County Durham or elsewhere. No doubt they are excellent people, but they ought to consider the consequences of a rejection of this sort. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give this matter sympathetic consideration. I do not know if it is possible to do anything now. It may be that the jazz band has been disbanded. That would create even more dismay in the locality.
I have raised two points, one of substantial importance, of a general character and affecting the rôle of the Territorial Army in training and its effectiveness and ability to come to the aid of the Regular Army, if circumstances require, in an emergency. The other point, I agree, is of less importance, but it is of interest in my locality. I hope that these two matters will receive consideration.

Sir H. Harrison: I am sure that the Committee listens with great interest and respect to any remarks


made by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). He was quite right in saying that he has always been interested in the training of the Army.
I remember perfectly well that when I was a Territorial C.O. he invited us to some manoeuvres in Germany. He was taken around in a truck and became covered with dust. He was far too important as Secretary of State for me then to speak to him. He and I would be only too willing to get up before dawn, but there were some grand foreign military attachés present, so the exercise was rather unreal as the attack did not take place until 11 a.m.
I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) raised a number of points about the Territorial Army, in which he has had a great career. I do not think it right that we should pass this Vote merely with a few comments on it about the great work done by men and women in the Territorial Army.
In a time when, in civilian life, they are earning more money and there are many more distractions, they are still prepared to join the Territorial Army. When I look at the Estimates I am a little concerned to see that the Vote for the Regular Army is about 9 per cent. up—I do not complain about that—but that the vote for the Territorial and reserve forces is only about 3½ per cent. up.
4.30 p.m.
May I put a few questions to my hon. Friend? If he cannot answer them all now, I know that he will write to me on the subject later. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West raised the question of recruiting. As the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said, there is a section of young men who, whatever else happens in their lives, are determined to do some form of service. Some join as Regular soldiers and others join the Territorial Army. It must be borne in mind that we are back to pre-1939 training conditions for the Territorial Army. When I was commanding a unit the men in it had trained either in war or under National Service. Today, recruits are joining who do not know a single thing about the Army when they join, and the difficulty is to get them through their

initial training. They have to be taught how to be soldiers and how to conduct themselves, and this is not the most interesting side of training.
We must also remember that our men and girls are marrying younger than ever. The pay which may have been attractive to a young bachelor is not so attractive to the married man. It is difficult for him to go away for military training when he has a wife. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West about the pay of the Territorial Army. Is my hon. Friend satisfied about the number of recruits from the Cadet Corps into either the Regular Army or the Territorial Army?
It is a little invidious to single out people, but I think that I ought to single out the difficulties of an officer who takes command of a Territorial unit as a Territorial soldier. I believe that it is important that many of our Territorial units are commanded by Territorial soldiers, but this involves them in much more than spare-time work; it is nearly half-time work for those who command Territorial units if those units are to be kept up to a state of efficiency. Will my hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend on the question whether commanding officers are sufficiently rewarded for the amount of time which they have to put in?
How large a percentage of the Territorial Army was able to do its training overseas last year? This is a very attractive side of Territorial Army training as it helps recruiting as well as being good for the men. If a man joins the county regiment or some other Territorial regiment, what are his prospects of going overseas for at least one of his camps?
I know that a certain amount of streamlining is going on between different Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations on the administrative side. Very happy relations of this kind have been established in Suffolk with the association of which I am a member. Is this continuing and gradually reducing the cost of administration? Administration is very important, but what the Territorial soldier gets is even more important.
Last year, on the Army Estimates, I raised a small matter about training—the issue of clothing. I was informed


that the Regular Army are issued with combat suits, which are water-proof suits, fairly warm, and very useful for crawling about the cold hills of Scotlan. These are not issued to the Territorial Army. That may be right as a question of policy, but hundreds of these suits which are condemned as not being 100 per cent. satisfactory for use by the Regular Army find their way into the innumerable shops which sell an enormous amount of surplus Government clothing. Many Territorials buy these combat suits from the shops out of their own money. I was told last year that this point would be looked into, but I am informed—I should like to be wrong—that the suits are not yet issued as regular equipment to men in the Territorial Army.
I pay tribute to the men and women who give up their time to join the Territorial Army, no doubt in a sense of patriotism. They get a great deal of enjoyment and pleasure out of it, but they are playing a vital part in the nation's affairs.

Mr. Wigg: I add my voice to that of the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) in paying tribute to those who have kept the Territorial Army going over the years and who, indeed, still do what they consider to be their duty—prepare themselves against emergencies which we hope will not occur. If these emergencies do occur, these men, by giving their time and energy, will have deserved well of their fellow countrymen.
I do not often disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), but when he made a point about the jazz band and the Durham County Association he raised an important issue of who shall control the drill hall. We cannot have it both ways. Either the drill hall will be controlled by the War Office, or it will be controlled by the Territorial Association. In times like the present, when the Armed Forces of the Crown are not regarded with the same high sense of importance as they are in an emergency, it is the Territorial Association, giving its time and effort in the same way as the young men give their time and their effort, which keeps the machine rolling. If we are to take power from the Association, even if only in terms of the letting of

the drill hall, we must be careful to see the long-term implications.
I hold the view that the Territorial Army is one of the most important sections of the Armed Forces. In my judgment, it is far more, infinitely more, important than the Navy. I would get rid of the Nagy tomorrow and spend the money on the Territorial Army. Only a handful of hon. Members are present today——

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand that my hon. Friend is merely expressing a personal view? Will he take it from me that that is not the opinion of the Labour Party?

Mr. Wigg: I am aware that it is not the opinion of the Labour Party. That means that the Labour Party has not caught up.
My right hon. Friend does not understand the implications of the situation in which we find ourselves, and I will try to help him and the Committee. Both parties are agreed that we should get rid of National Service. It would be improper to discuss the motives which prompted that decision, but both are agreed that we should get rid of National Service and they have decided what the target should be. The target is 182,000 men. The Government claim that they have got rid of National Service. The idea of selective service is abhorrent; these are two dirty words not to be used. It is believed that anyone who can pin the words "selective service" on to someone else has scored a bull's eye.
But it is a point which I have constantly made on other occasions, and which I make again now, that we have not got rid of conscription and that we have selective service—otherwise the passing of the Army Reserve Act, 1962 had no meaning. Let us go back to the circumstances of that Act. It created a high sense of excitement. It was going to fill the gap. The "Ever-readies" were to come along and we were going to get 15,000 of them.
I was rather surprised that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington was so quick to get to his feet to denounce me. He did it with such virulence that it made me shudder. Does he really know the emoluments involved? The particulars are in the Estimates and the facts were put out in some literature


which I retained against this day, for I knew that the question was bound to come up again. The "Ever-readies" get a bounty of £150 a year and if they are recalled they get a bounty of £50 and a further proportion of the £150, reckoned from the beginning of the year in question up to the day when they are called up. Having set the target at 15,000 men, which was the essential minimum that not only the Government but both parties considered necessary, the Government have failed to reach that target. The target of 15,000 was gradually phased down until the Government are left with a target of 5,000 men, to which extent they have been almost successful.
Then we had the admission by the Secretary of State for War—for whom, as I have said in previous debates, I have the highest regard—that during the Cyprus emergency the Government could not call the "Ever-readies" up because they were afraid of international repercussions. Really! Is not that a senseless use of 5,000 reserves at £150 a year each—or 33⅓ per cent. of the target of 15,000 reserves which the Government managed to reach? What an admission; that they did not have the guts to call them up; but what can we expect from this Government?
Also against this day I have kept a confidential document which I am sure will interest hon. Members. It was confidential when first issued, there is no reason why its contents should not now be revealed. This document was prepared for commands and was headed:
Public Presentation of the Government's Actions on Army Manpower Shortage".
It was an ably written document, the first paragraph of which stated:
The recruiting campaign is in full swing and we still hope to hit our minimum target of 165,000 to 182,000".
It went over the manpower policy of the Government, which we have dealt with on many occasions, and then, in paragraph 6, it stated:
The best way to achieve this for the immediate Berlin crisis is, of course, to make use of men who are already in the Army, trained and equipped.
That paragraph made it clear that the 1962 Act was introduced for that purpose, because it stated:
The best way to achieve this for the immediate Berlin crisis …

The decision to retain National Service men for six months shows that that decision was taken in connection with the Berlin crisis, as is revealed in paragraph 6. The document went on to say something, in paragraph 7, which was completely concealed from the National Service reservist—and this is particularly interesting to those who think that we can get rid of conscription:
Her Majesty's Government has, therefore, decided to take powers to retain men doing their full-time National Service for up to a further six months.
4.45 p.m.
The document went on to explain how, with these things in mind, the Government were making a major examination of our reserves. That major examination produced the trifling little Army Reserve Bill, which went through its Committee stage in a couple of mornings and which reorganised the general reserves' liability to recall; but, apart from that, it did not do anything very much.
When I began speaking my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington was quick to point out that I was not speaking for the whole of the Labour Party. In fact, my right hon. Friend denied that I was so speaking. It is rather terrible to think what some people will say, bearing in mind the importance of the Territorial Army, if they have an unrealistic view of the situation and know little about it. The document from which I was quoting went on to add:
This action will certainly carry us through under all conditions until 1963.
It went on to pose a question, and asked:
What after that? We must hope and work for an improvement in the world situation to such a level as to be able to carry out our commitments with regular forces, backed by an increased ability to recall reservists if we hit any temporary crisis.
Just prior to that, in paragraph 10, the document stated:
Therefore, Her Majesty's Government proposes to take permissive powers to call back National Service men who are still in their 3½ years' part-time service, for up to six months additional full-time service, if necessary.
Remembering that the document posed the question, "What after that?" in regard to what will happen after 1963, it is clear that the world has made no progress


towards real disarmament. We must also look ahead three or four years when there will be no trained National Service men with a reserve liability. That point is made clear and that is why I say that the Territorial Army and the "Ever-readies" are more important than the Navy, for the Navy is concerned with a concept which it is unlikely we will have to face.
The Government's policy of giving us three aircraft carriers and 120 Phantoms, but failing to provide us with tank landing ships, is a lousy policy. We want infantry, trained and carried by the Royal Air Force and backed up by the R.A.F. They must be highly mobile with effective reserves who can be used to meet likely emergencies. From where will those reserves come? The document from which I have quoted, which was circulated when the 1962 Act was going through Parliament, did not give us the answer.
I guess that about 100,000 National Service men are still liable for service. In two or three years' time they will have gone and the 1962 Act, to which the document I quoted and the Government attached so much importance, will be meaningless because the liability to recall for six months affecting those reservists will not apply. All the Government will then have will be 5,000 "Ever-readies", the A.E.R. and the Class A reservists and the Government will also have the Section B men who are not pre-Proclamation reservists. Beyond that the Government have the Territorial Army on which to fall back and which has existed, to its credit, inadequately trained, inadequately equipped and under-manned—yet it is to be the spearhead to bring active formations up to a high state of readiness to meet a sudden emergency.
I hope that the Under-Secretary realises that it is impossible to take a nucleus of a unit and then suddenly merge it with reservists and imagine that five minutes later it has become a combat unit. That sort of thinking is for the amateurs. To do this in a real emergency is not on and it is worth remembering, as I have said on many previous occasions, that the best forces this country ever turned out were the "Old Contemptibles" of 1914, who were superbly trained and equipped and who out-marched and out-shot the German Army and brought it to a standstill, though substantially outnumbered. They

did it because they formed a long-service and disciplined Army, and because the reservists who came back in their turn had had a long period of training.
What I am endeavouring to say is that the enthusiasm and patriotism which may exist in any force counts for nothing without the efficiency which comes from long training. It is in this direction that the Government have and are failing to appreciate the realities of life and I regret to say that the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington reveals that he has failed to notice that the importance of the Territorial Army stems from the fact that the Government and the Opposition are committed to the abolition of conscription; that is to say, that the last vestige of it will go with the expiration of the 1962 Act, when we must begin to think what we will put in its place.
It is because of this that I have, in our debates during the last week, asked the Government many questions, because what right hon. Gentlemen opposite have preferred to do is to turn their backs on constructive thinking and on getting the maximum amount of agreement between both sides so that by our general consideration of this difficult problem we may find a satisfactory solution. Under the leadership of the present Prime Minister the party opposite has chosen to throw defence into the cockpit of party politics. To that extent both sides have moved away from each other, and the interruptions I had from my own side a few moments ago were born of that fact. Whether or not it is Labour Party policy, my proposition is that the sun rises in the east and sinks in the west—basic facts——

Mr. Shinwell: I think that my hon. Friend is allowing his enthusiasm to run away with his judgment. I regret that very much, but it is probably just a temporary aberration. My hon. Friend was at the War Office with me, and will be aware that no one stressed the need for the training of the Territorial Army more than I did. I constantly pressed on those responsible the need for this training, and I still do so. I can see no value having a Territorial Army, an auxiliary forces Army, unless there is, not perfunctory training, as is the position now, but regular training. I know


that there are difficulties, but they must be surmounted.

Mr. Wigg: If my enthusiasm is running away with me I hope that my right hon. Friend will break into a gallop and try to keep up with me. I am not talking exclusively about training. I have dealt with the organisation and numbers of the "Ever-readies". I have dealt with their emoluments, and I am now moving to the question of the Territorial Army, the Emergency Reserve and the Regular Army Reserve, at present organised on the comfortable basis that the Government, any Government, will in the last analysis, have 100,000 National Service men to call back for six months during their Reserve service, but the liability of those 100,000 men, down to the last man, finishes certainly by May, 1966.
I still plead with the Government to set up a Select Committee, because this is a very difficult problem. It would mean release of the control by this House because, at present, if the Government call out Section B they must at once inform the House of Commons; they cannot exercise the proclamation procedure without telling the House. But the Government set up a special reserve, pay men £150 each for the specific liability of recall for six months without proclamation and then, when the chips are down, say that they have not the guts to call them up.
If I am making the running and am over-enthusiastic, at least I err on the right side. I do not believe that the post-Proclamation procedure is applicable to the needs of our times. When Section B was called up in 1914 the Territorial Army was embodied by Proclamation, because that was the kind of world in which we then lived. It is an historical fact that when the First World War broke out, in 1914, a Liberal Government delayed mobilisation for 24 hours because they did not want to interfere with the Bank Holiday traffic. If hon. Members ever want to read an account of that wonderful operation, I will give them two sources: the first chapter of the official history of the First World War is one, and the second, and infinitely more readable, is the opening chapters of General Fuller's "Diary of an Unconventional Soldier".
That operation worked because the mobilisation plans as then conceived put the expeditionary force into France with a vast number of horses and their fodder, and they made contact with the Germans on 22nd August. It was a wonderful planning operation, and was possible because the whole structure of the Army, the terms of service, how the men were brought in, and the equipment, made the whole thing an exercise in team work. I do not think that at present the procedure of calling up vast numbers of men by Proclamation when an emergency blows up meets the needs of the modern world——

Sir H. Harrison: The hon. Member will remember that those Territorial Army regiments and battalions went to France in 1914 when their terms of service were for home duties—they went there as volunteers.

Mr. Wigg: Yes, and it happened at a holiday period, and some of the men were already in camp. Those details are there, but they do not invalidate my point.
The trouble with the "Ever-readies" is not necessarily that the Government were wrong, but that there is lacking the co-operation of the employers. When I talked to a group of "Ever-readies", every one of them told me the same story; that he had volunteered because his employer had guaranteed that his job would be waiting for him. It is asking quite a lot of an employer to liberate a man at a moment's notice for six months and guarantee that he will get his job back. Unless a way can be found round that difficulty I do not think that there will be a very great rise in the numbers of "Ever-readies".
A bargain should be struck, and a great deal more money should be provided for the Territorial Army. The men should be given the opportunity to train with the equipment with which they might be called upon to fight, and their standard training should be roughly in line with that of the Regular Army. The ceiling figure might be lower. In return, the officers and men should be prepared to accept the liability, not to be called out, as the "Ever-readies" are, at any time for six months, but either in units or as individuals without Proclamation


That involves the control of this House over mobilisation procedure, and the touchy point about the House of Commons keeping control of Vote A. That is why I urge the necessity of approaching this problem from an all-party standpoint. We must have regard to the rights of the House of Commons, because this takes us back over 300 years of controversy between Parliament and Monarch—controversy that now has no validity.
We have to look at it in the light of control by the House of Commons and the needs of the Armed Forces—and we may find ourselves forced to face up to them, not because of forward-thinking, but because events will overtake us. That marks the difference between my right hon. Friend and myself. He says that I am over-enthusiastic. and rebukes me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, he went out of his way to give me a savage rebuke when I said that I attached much more importance to the Territorial Army—and, certainly, to the Army—than I do to the Navy. I did not mention the Air Force, because the Air Force has another rôle to play for the Army.
Some hon. Members are perfectly sincere in saying that they want all-Regular forces and are now astonished that some protagonists should hold the view that selective service is wicked. But we have to do some forward thinking about the organisation of reserve forces, because if we are to depend on Regular forces, and see the need for rapid expansion in terms of either the First or Second World Wars, or in terms of the many emergencies that have occurred since then, it is absolutely clear that, in some way or other, we have to find a means whereby those reserve forces can be trained, equipped and organised, and their call-up system so arranged that batches of individuals can be assimilated into Regular units without affecting the efficiency of those units, or have units of the Territorial Army organised and trained so that they can form a second echelon. It seems to me that that is the challenge. This is 1964, and we have now got no more than two years. By May, 1966, the last National Service man will have gone.
If hon. Members will just take the trouble to bring themselves up to date in terms of the numbers which exist and

which have a liability for recall under the pre-Proclamation procedure, they will see the narrowness of the bridge which they are asking these forces to cross. The alternative, of course, is a frightening one. If nothing is done now and the matter is left till next year and then something begins to go wrong—of course, 100,000 men do not all go out together—the only way to deal with it then will be by general mobilisation.
We have already been warned about the alacrity with which the Government respond to the possible reaction to mobilisation. Therefore, I urge the Government to reconsider their decision not to carry the examination of reserve forces further, and not only to carry it further but to regard one other aspect of it as a House of Commons matter and to use the good will which exists on both sides of the House in order to get not only the Territorial Army but the reserve forces on to a sound basis.

5.0 p.m.

Dr. Man Glyn: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), with his great enthusiasm for the Army, helped us at the beginning of his speech to dispose of the Navy. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him completely in all that he said. I want to reinforce two things. I think that we are faced with a very real problem as to how and where we use our reserve forces. My view on the matter goes a long way towards supporting what the hon. Member for Dudley said. If we are to have a Territorial force then it has to be a real force and has to be used as a reinforcement of the Regular Army.
When T.A.E.R. and A.E.R. were first suggested in the House many of us supported them fully, but we said at the time that we hoped that the employers would accept as part of their contribution to the national effort allowing men to go. I believe that one of the great obstacles to joining the T.A.E.R. is that men are frightened that, even though they have some statutory protection with regard to returning to their job, their employers may not feel the same about it and that their jobs may be jeopardised.
The second reason why I think that the T.A.E.R. has not received the response which we would all have liked it to receive is that the men are not


trained in units. If there is to be an emergency section of the Regular Army and the T.A. it is vitally essential that the men should be grouped together in units. Men going out on active service want particularly not to go out as individuals; they want to go out with their friends as a sub-unit. This is a very important factor in getting men to join this Reserve.
The other thing we have to accept is that if we are to have this emergency force we must take the political consequence of using these men for operations abroad. In the case of an emergency such as that in Cyprus, or emergencies similar to those in other Commonwealth countries to which we have been called, we should not hesitate to say that as we have these men in this pre-Proclamation Reserve we should use them to reinforce the Regular Army. I do not think that there is anything to object to in that. After all, these are the terms on which these men enlist and if we send them out on active operations abroad they will receive much more encouragement to join such a force. Men like to feel that they are going to do a job which is useful rather than just spend their time in camp.
I believe that to use these men in a situation such as that in Cyprus would have a beneficial effect on recruitment to this type of reserve. It would encourage them and make them feel that they were doing a useful job. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is nodding. I do not know whether he is agreeing with me or not.

Mr. Paget: I certainly was not disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Glyn: I did not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was nodding in approval or disapproval. I am glad to learn that he was nodding in approval.
The decision which I am venturing to suggest is not really an Army decision at all; it is a political decision. It is the decision whether or not we are prepared to take whatever consequences there are in using this reserve for overseas commitments. It is a very important decision which has to be made.
There are one or two other small points I wish to take up. First, we

must send out a message today to employers pointing out that it is vitally important that they should accept the fact that men in the Reserve are subject to call-up and subject to serve for a period. The second thing I want to make clear to my right hon. Friend, and one on which I should like reassurance, is that I believe what the Territorial Army should have more flexibility concerning the times when the men are trained. It is very discouraging to a man not to get double pay on Sundays and not to do his training with the unit. I believe that by some alteration of the machinery we could easily overcome that difficulty.
The other point I wish to raise, and on which I pressed my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State for War, is the question of the A.E.R. A great number of men and a large number of officers would like to do a longer period than that prescribed by regulation. At present it is 15 days. Before the war the Supplementary Reserve allowed officers and men to serve for six months. As I say, I believe that there are men on these reserves, and especially officers, who would be prepared to serve for a longer period.
I admit that to do this would mean increased expenditure, but I am quite sure that the Committee will agree that it would be an expenditure very well worth while. I hope that before his term of office ends my right hon. Friend will look into this matter extremely carefully, because I am sure that we have here a number of men who could be of real use.
The last point I wish to take up is that concerning commanding officers of T.A. units. I do not think any one would deny that, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) said, commanding officers are put to a considerable expenditure of time and expense in connection with their duties. They have a very large amount of entertaining to do by virtue of their position. If they are to retain their position and get recruits they have to know local people. I feel that we could possibly be slightly more generous in the allowance which we give to commanding officers of T.A. units. As I say, they are frequently put to considerable expense which they have to meet out of their own pockets. I know


that my hon. Friend will say that there are allowances given for this purpose, but I think that we should look at the matter and give commanding officers of these units a helping hand.
Finally, I hope that the position of our reserve forces will be looked at and that the country will accept the fact that the T.A. Reserve and the Army Emergency Reserve are the right reserves with which to reinforce the Regular Army when and if required, and that they should be looked upon by the country, and particularly by employers, in that light.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I propose to detain the Committee for only a few minutes, to make two points. One was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. A. Glyn) and the other by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) about the National Service men. In 18 months or two years' time these men will not be available in their present form, and whatever Government are in power then will have to face the matter very seriously. As far as the Territorial Army Association is concerned, they are the best men available. We are not making full use of them. They are keen men and are devoting their spare time to the T.A.
I should like to see the Government approach industry, perhaps through the F.B.I. or some other organisation, in order to arrange for men to he released from their jobs with the guarantee that they shall be taken back after the emergency rather like industry is asked to take 2 per cent. of disabled men into its employ. Something like this could be worked out. Industry has never been asked. The British people will understand any problem affecting the country if it is put to them clearly. If my hon. Friend sees that industry is approached. I am sure that he will have a tremendous response.

Mr. Paget: I know that the hon. Member has great experience in this sphere. Does he feel that industry would also respond to the proposal that, within this quota, wages should be made up to whatever the men were earning in the industry?

Sir A. V. Harvey: Yes, that should be the case, but small firms, naturally,

will be unable to fall into line. We should tackle first those firms which are in receipt of Government contracts for the supply of clothing or of arms. Hundreds, if not thousands, of firms have these Government contracts. Let us get moving with them. I nave industrial interests and I am not aware of any appeal being made to industry in this matter I should like to see it made from the top.
Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that the Territorial Army units have up-to-date equipment? My information is that they have not. Nothing is more disheartening to men who voluntarily give up their time for training than to be denied proper equipment. I do not want to say too much about the Auxiliary Air Force, because I should be out of order under this Vote, but for years before and after the last war members of that force did more flying than the Regulars and they were just as competent. The fact is that a volunteer can be trained to be as efficient as a Regular if his enthusiasm is kept going and he is given the right equipment.
I know that one or two units in the London area deficient in equipment. I should prefer to see equipment taken away from the Regulars to train these men who are the hard core of the reserve. I should like to know what is being done to improve their status and to get them better trained.

5.15 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I am sorry if we are having a somewhat one-sided debate. There is no doubt that the issue which we have been discussing for the last hour or so is probably the most important of all in the sphere of defence. I would not go the whole way, however, with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in suggesting that because it is the most important issue we should, therefore, scrap the Navy. The hon. Member said that he thought that the Territorial Army was so important that in comparison with it he would be prepared to scrap the whole Navy. He really used those words, but if he wants to explain them further I will gladly give way to him.

Mr. Wigg: I meant what I said. What I would do would be to take money misspent on the Navy and give it to the


Territorial Army. I put the efficiency of the Territorial Army and the reserve forces far beyond where I place the efficiency of the Navy.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am little clearer now about what the hon. Member meant, but I cannot pursue it very far, because he is on a different Vote. Where I found the hon. Member's argument most compelling was on the point that, whether we like it or not, in a year or two's time, even if not earlier, we shall have to make a great decision over manpower for the Army. I certainly ask the hon. Member to believe that he does not have a monopoly of interest in this matter. All of us who have studied the matter over the years have been deeply concerned about it.
It has always been clear to me that the obvious alternative to selective service is to increase the right to call up reservists. Whereas the whole question of National Service would be outside the Vote, the question of what we can do about the reservists is very relevant and I propose to address my remarks to that point. It is perfectly clear from what the Secretary of State for War said on 5th March, when he introduced the Estimates, that the figure which we shall have to deal with in the immediate future is 8,000.
My right hon. Friend said:
From 1st January, 1963, to 1st February, 1964, the other rank strength rose by only 1,830, to 152,260 within a total Army strength of 171,588. We are still nearly 8,000 other ranks short."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 1534–5.]
I have tried to face this issue all along. If we do not get enough men by voluntary recruitment we have only two choices before us. We must either reduce our commitments or we must get the men by some means other than voluntary recruitment.
I do not believe that we can now reduce our commitments any more. They are highly likely to increase in the next few months. As we know, many units are not up to strength at the moment. Where shall we find the men to man them? I say without hesitation that the right place to find them is from among the reservists. I say this because it is the reservists who are the best trained of all the men who are not actually serving at the moment. The serious consideration is that the longer the time

that elapses between the time that they are trained and the time when they are called upon to serve, the less useful they are likely to be.

Mr. John Hall: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that although there may be a shortfall of only about 8,000 from the target figure, that does not represent necessarily the actual requirement, which may be 28,000 rather than 8,000?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am grateful for that intervention. It strengthens rather than weakens my argument. I accept that, but I was dealing with the immediate issue to which the Secretary of State referred. The gap will be far greater as the years go by, but this is the hard figure which we have to bite on in this year's Estimates.
I feel that the country has an attitude towards defence at the moment which shows that it is not prepared to do sufficient by voluntary means of what it must do if it is to play a full part in Implementing defence policy. We must, therefore, consider whether the reservists referred to in Army Vote 2 will be enough. The first item is the Regular Reserve on which we are to spend £580,000. Last year, we spent £800,000. What is the reason for the fall? Is it that so many more men have gone off the Reserve and have not been replaced? The Regular Reserve is also referred to in Appendix III on page 104.
The Regular Reserve consists of:
Section A. Men who are liable to recall for permanent service outside the United Kingdom without proclamation, when warlike operations are in preparation or in progress.
Section B. Men, other than those in Section A who, after completing a period of service with the Colours, have been transferred to the reserve.
There are also Sections D, F and G with which are also included the Royal Army Nursing Corps and the Women's Royal Army Corps.
The whole of this is governed by a footnote on page 104, which refers to the Navy, Army and Air Force Reserves Bill, which will have the effect of increasing the liability of those under Section A from one year to three. The same Bill also extends the Army General Reserve liability for those completing their liability under the National Service


Acts after 31st December, 1962, for five years. Four years from now anything that those reservists may have learned while they were serving will be becoming rapidly out of date.
My principal reason for intervening is to ask my hon. Friend a question. I know that he will not this afternoon be in a position to declare new Government policy on the calling-up of reserves. But I should like to know whether he can give some undertaking that a real review will be undertaken to discover what can be done to keep the reservists whom we have got up to date, especially those in Sections A and B.
It is quite obvious that at the moment we cannot call up Section B reservists without a proclamation. If the reduction in the Vote this year on Section A reservists means what I fear it may mean—in other words, that we are not getting sufficient replacements for those who are leaving it—I hope we shall be told what is going to be done to make good that loss and to keep Section B well trained.
Finally, are we satisfied that the National Service men who are doing their part-time service with the Territorial Army are getting the sort of training which it would be necessary for them to have were they to be recalled? Nobody respects the Territorial Army more than I do. When I was a Regular soldier I was often attached to units of the Territorial Army as an instructor, and I have an immense admiration for them in all my recollections of those times. But I know perfectly well that the Territorial Army is not fully equipped in the same way as the frontline regiments are. It would probably be unreasonable to expect them to be so. But their enthusiasm is not always as well rewarded as it should be, neither is the amount that the Treasury allows to be spent on them as great as it should be.
Nevertheless, even if we have got all that can reasonably be expected, I still believe that the part-time service of the National Service man will not necessarily be adequate to enable him to fulfil straight away his obligation of full-time service were he recalled and engaged in operations as tricky as those in Cyprus at the moment.
I sympathise deeply with the Government and with the Army in the position in which they find themselves. I have had sufficient experience of having to train men with inadequate strength and inadequate weapons, or with flags to represent the weapons. I know how disheartening it can be to any Regular soldier to Lave to carry out training with only two-thirds of the men that he should have under his command. It is absolutely incredible how well the Army has done, in view of the difficulties that it has had to face. It is to the greatest credit of all ranks involved. Whatever may be the assessment of the Army's patience to continue enduring those sorts of things, there is something even more important than that. The real danger that this country faces is putting off the evil day too long.
Rather than follow the advice that was given by my right hon. Friend when he introduced his Estimates the other day, namely, to have a polyglot Army consisting of every other nation but our own trying to look after the safety of this country—and there were times when even the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) worried me a little because I thought he was relying far too much on overseas and Commonwealth troops, and far too little on our own ability to find our own defence from this country—if we cannot do this by voluntary means, we may have to say to our Regular soldiers, "Your liability to come back to as is to be increased commensurately with your inability to persuade your sons to come into the Army after you." I honestly believe this to be the case.
One of the surest ways of making certain that the reservists themselves will not have to be called upon will be to try to persuade them to get their sons to join up as Regulars. The feeling, "We need not bother. We have served our time. Our sons do not happen to want to join at the moment," seems to me to be the weak way out. I would rather see more former Regular soldiers encouraging their children to join up. I see that the hon. Member for Dudley is itching to interrupt, so I will give way.

Mr. Wigg: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, his speeches arouse great sympathy. I only


ask this question to get the matter clarified. I presume that he is not urging that there should be any breach in the terms of the Regular soldier's engagement. He does not propose that the Regular soldier should be told. "You have got to have an additional Reserve service commitment because the others will not pull their weight"?

Sir A. V. Harvey: If my hon. Friend suggests that we should draw on the good will of our serving officers and men, he will have to recognise that considerably more will have to be done in respect of pensions, including widows' pensions.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I could not agree with my hon. Friend more on that point. That ought to be done, whether my suggestion is followed or not. It is overdue anyway. Unfortunately, that point does not arise on this Vote. I wish it did, because I should like to follow it up at some length.
In reply to the hon. Member for Dudley, it is just because the country is putting our defence in this position that made that proposal. It is because the country has not responded to the voluntary appeal, because I believe that National Service is a wasteful way of doing it and I do not want to see National Service reintroduced, that I made that suggestion. The whole problem could be answered overnight if we had a surge of voluntary recruitment to the Colours. Even my suggestion to increase the liability of reservists would not pay off very quickly. It would mean amending the law and increasing the liability of Section 3 reservists. It would require new legislation.
I have voiced these thoughts, not because I expect my hon. Friend to be able to answer these points "off the cuff" but to show that there are others besides the hon. Member for Dudley who are worried about the situation. He does not possess a monopoly of interest in this matter. The hon. Member for Dudley year after year holds the attention of the House—or of those Members who have remained behind while he has spoken on these topics—and I know that his heart is deeply in the subject, but I ask him to believe that he does not possess a monopoly of interest. Many of us have tried to solve this problem.
I say to him that rather than have National Service or selective National Service, I would prefer a really good voluntary Army with the reservists as an immediate boost to the Regular strength. I believe that is sensible economics, apart from anything else. We have spent thousands of pounds training these soldiers while they were under the Colours. If we accept the fact that there is a need for an Army Reserve, why not take full advantage of that training rather than start from scratch each time? This is the great disadvantage of National Service, and even of selective National Service.
I still believe that we can train a Regular Army better than any other nation can, and that the best way to increase the numbers is to ensure that we have sufficient rights, so far as the reservists are concerned, to boost the Regular Army up to the strength necessary to carry out its commitments.
5.30 p.m.
This question raises the whole issue of the size of the commitments and the question of getting the men where they are needed, but the most important question of all that is raised is keeping the reservists well enough trained to be of use on immediate recall. That is the question which I am putting to my hon. Friend. I want him to give an undertaking to look into it if he has not already done so. The more he can say about it, the better.
I hope that in saying what I have said today, nobody will think that I am suggesting that what I put forward is fair—of course it is not; it is monstrously unfair—but those who will have made it unfair are the people who will not respond to the voluntary call and will not face the other alternatives, the other alternatives being to cut our commitments or to reintroduce National Service. To fail to face up to any of these things, which is what all too many people are doing, inevitably means injustice.
Perhaps when some people outside the House of Commons, as well as in it, study a bit more what sort of life the Army has been made to live because the country has treated the Army in the way it has, we may have a little more incentive in the minds of a few more people to have voluntary recruitment at the level which it should be.

Mr. Wigg: I cannot understand why the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) imagines that because I come here and say what I think about the reserve forces, I want to monopolise the subject. That is the last thing I want to do. What I have tried to do since I have been a Member of the House of Commons is to do what I call my homework and then come to the House and say what I think. I do not want to monopolise the discussion. I am delighted that the hon. Member has seen the light. I only wish that he would go a little further and think about it a bit more.
Even now, the hon. Member is only just beginning to get half the story. He has told the Committee about his prewar experience, and he is right. That was how the Conservative Government of the day prepared the British Army for war before the Second World War. What happened on that occasion happens now. Every effort was made to disguise the truth from the public before 1939 and the same thing happens now. As the hon. Member has said, flags were used to indicate units and "make believe" was the order of the day.
What was wrong then is wrong today. The A tiny is out of balance. Before the war, the Army tried to balance manpower by enlisting all regular soldiers for 12 years. The balance was obtained by enlisting the infantry for seven years with the Colours and five with the reserves, the Artillery for six years with the Colours and six years with the reserves, the artillery for six years with the Colours and nine with the reserves and the R.A.S.C. eight with the Colours and four with the reserves, and so on. In other words, every 12-year Regular soldier spent part of his time with the Colours and part with the Reserve to give balance. Today the Government have abandoned balance.
To the extent that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely has supported me he has done so because he is a patriot and an ex-Regular soldier, but, true to his traditions, he cannot face the logic of his own action. So when I spell out the prospect that faces us if we do not mend our ways he suggests that I have monopolised the discussion when all I am doing is, once again, to recount the facts.
The hon. Member now agrees with that. To that extent, we are allies. We want to get this matter off party lines so that we look at the facts objectively in the interests of the country and of the Army. That is one of the reasons why I have advocated taking these matters upstairs, adopting the American system, looking at cost effectiveness and having an expenditure committee examining the Estimates, not to make party points, but to ascertain the facts. This applies even to my "crack" about the Navy. Obviously, the balance as between the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force should depend not upon the extent to which one's emotions are aroused about these subjects, but upon the basic facts.
The Americans have found a technique of ascertaining the facts objectively so that they get value for money. We do not do that. We simply go drifting along. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely and myself are allies. Let us be content with that, but do not let anybody say that I want to monopolist. I do not. I would rather not be here than do that.

Mr. John Morris: This has been a valuable and interesting debate. Points have been raised, both this afternoon and in the debate last Thursday, about the equipment of the Territorial Army and criticisms have been made from time to time. Obviously, there will always be limits as to the equipment that the Territorial Army can have. The point which I wish to make is that even though we must regard the Regular Army as having the first priority in equipment, every effort must be made by the Government to ensure that the best equipment available is with the Territorial Army.
The test of the equipment of the Territorial Army is how it affects its training compared with the Regular Army. Perhaps we may hear from the Under-Secretary of State, when he replies, first, whether his Department is doing its best to ensure that the best possible equipment is available, and secondly, that the training does not suffer because of the equipment which the Territorial Army has.
My next point concerns the "Ever-readies". When the last Bill but one


was introduced to the House, the "Ever-readies" were held up as an important innovation and a great deal was expected of them. If I remember rightly, the ceiling—it was not a target; it was a ceiling, as the then Secretary of State told us—was 15,000. I believe that the figure is now about 5,000. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can tell us exactly what it is. Something, however, has gone wrong concerning recruiting to this valuable force.
I was interested in the valuable speech made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) when he dealt with the position concerning employers. Obviously, there is no real security for those who sign on the line and become a member of the "Ever-readies". If they are called up, they do not know whether their jobs will be there when they come back. It might well be that if they are called up on the first occasion from a big firm, there would be no difficulty, but I agree entirely with the hon. Member that a real approach should be made to industry and that co-operation is needed. Perhaps we may have an indication from the Government this afternoon of the steps which have been taken to ensure the future of men who sign and who agree to undertake this service or that, at least, an attempt has been made to safeguard them with their employers. I am sure that unless this is done, no real force will be available and recruiting will not rise much higher than it is today.
We heard from the Secretary of State in the debate on Thursday, and earlier in the defence debate, that some of the reasons why the "Ever-readies" were not called up recently was, first, that there was not the need for them, and secondly, that there might well be international repercussions if they were called up. We are now in the position that if there were a need for the "Ever. readies", if they were needed at any time to reinforce and bolster up the Regular Army, we are unable to call them up because of the international repercussions that the calling up of this force might have.
If that is made a sacrosanct reason for not calling up the "Ever-readies", that in itself reduces the force to sterility. The Government must find a

way out of this, otherwise this Committee is entitled to ask why we are paying these men and what we are getting for the money and the bounty which they get every year, unless at some stage they can be called back without our having international repercussions.
A way out of that difficulty might be if the Government were to make a practice of calling a regular number of the "Ever-readies" back to the Regular Army every year, not because they are needed, but to ensure that the force does not become sterile and to ensure that the situation does not continue that we are unable to call this force back simply because of international considerations. If the practice were to be adopted of calling back a certain percentage every year—the percentage need not be disclosed—there would be no general world-wide alarm if the whole, or even a substantial part, of this force were called up. It would become a regular practice and would meet the observations of hon. Members that some of those who have joined would like to be called up and do a useful job—which, after all, was one of their purposes.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State seriously to consider the suggestion that it might well be made a practice that a percentage—the proportion need not be disclosed—of the "Ever-readies" will be called back annually to ensure that it does not become a sterile force.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Surely it would be most important also to send them overseas as well as a matter of course.

Mr. John Hall: Surely one difficulty is that, if it became known that a certain percentage of the "Ever-readies" would be called up each year, this would discourage employers from agreeing to employees volunteering as "Ever-readies" whereas that situation does not apply because there is only an indefinite commitment to something which may or may not occur.

Mr. Morris: I agree with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) that this might militate against recruitment, but that danger is already present. If only a small percentage were called up annually, however, I do not think that this would militate any more against recruitment than does the present situation.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) that not only should the men be called up, but that they should be sent overseas as well. However, that would obviously depend on the need of the time and how best they could be fitted in. Overseas service in this way would certainly prove attractive for recruiting. This ties up with the point put by the hon. Member for Wycombe and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey)—that, if we seek the co-operation of employers before we start and secure an assurance that the jobs of these men would be available again on their return, we should get the co-operation of the great firms.
There might, of course, be difficulties with the smaller firms and I sympathise with their position if they knew that perhaps one-fifth or one-tenth of their workers would be liable to be called to service with the "Ever-readies" every year. But I would not visualise great difficulties with the larger firms.
Certainly, such a system would prevent this force from becoming sterile and that is the important point. It would be a major tragedy if this force, which was launched with such high hopes, became sterile and one which we could not equip or use in any way because of international considerations. I hope that the Government will consider making it flexible and using it in the way suggested.
As has been shown by the speeches on both sides of the Committee, we all appreciate the great deal of work done by the Territorial Army. I only spent a short time in it myself, in fulfilment of a statutory obligation. But there were many others in it not as National Service men, but as a labour of love. I regard our reserve forces as being tremendously important but we must face the fact that, in them, our National Service men are a wasting asset.
The Army Reserve Act was introduced after we had been warned that the Government would have a close examination of the reserve situation but, in effect, it only cut the Government's losses. We must now face the situation that, in a very short time, very few of those eligible to join the Territorial Army will have received military training. All the ex-National Service men will have gone. Of

course, ex-Regulars will be available, but, certainly, those with experience of active campaign will be disappearing almost completely from the Territorial Army.
That imposes an important problem of how to train effectively this new force which will be composed of volunteers with no active military training. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to tell us the Government's view of our reserve forces when the cupboard is bare of National Service men.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Kirk: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asked about the Malta Territorial Force and I will begin by answering him on the reason for the very large drop in its vote. We expect Malta's independence in the next few months, and, whatever may happen to the force after that date, we do not expect it to be borne on the Votes of the Defence Department.
The main discussion has turned on the Territorial Army Emergency Reserve. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have rightly stressed the very great importance which the House and the Government attach to the T.A. and the service it renders. We are only too well aware of the situation that will arise in two years' time, when the last of the ex-National Service men passes off the immediate reserve.
It is our intention to build up the reserve forces partly through the T.A. and the T.A.E.R. and also through the extension a Section A, which will, of course, come into effect progressively as the Navy, Army and Air Force Reserve Act, 1964, takes effect. But there are problems connected with this, as hon. Members have pointed out.
My hon Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) spoke with great vigour on a number of points which have also been worrying the war Office over the last few years. First, he raised the question of the man training days. It is true that, as the National Service element of the T.A. passes out, the need for even greater and more effective training of the T.A. will increase. The figure of 16 man training days has been in effect for some years now and so far seems


to have worked quite well. But I am aware of the desire of the T.A. to have a longer time at it. I cannot give a firm undertaking today other than to say that I am sympathetic to the points put by my hon. Friend and that we shall certainly look very carefully at the position.
Another major point, put not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West, but by nearly every other speaker, was that of equipment and clothing. Again, the War Office would like to do better if it could. We are studying the question of providing combat dress for the reserve army generally and that would include the T.A.

Sir H. Harrison: I raised this subject a year ago. Has there been any move forward since then?

Mr. Kirk: A few inches further forward. We are studying this subject in considerable detail and we hope that it will be possible to do something on these lines fairly shortly. We are only too well aware of the feeling in the T.A. about clothing in particular and we are most anxious to satisfy the demand if we can. We are now at the stage where there are pools of No. 2 dress—ceremonial dress—so that, if we get the question of combat dress settled, the T.A. will probably be satisfied. But I cannot say anything more definite this afternoon.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Hon. Members referred to combat suits being disposed of through surplus stores. Will my hon. Friend consider whether these are suitable for issue to the T.A.?

Mr. Kirk: I will do so but I imagine that they have flaws in them. We considered the possibility of second-hand issues but the trouble is that most combat suits are not fit for anything by the time the Regular Army is done with them.
We are now making issues of modern radio equipment under the programme which covers both the Regular and T.A. units. Because of increased Regular Army demand, however, T.A. units will now not be fully equipped with modern radio equipment until 1968, but we have made additional old range radio equipment available to cover the gap.
Issues of armoured vehicles to the T.A. are complete, and the issue of new Land Rovers nearly so. We are now making a world-wide survey of stocks to see whether further specialised and engineering vehicles can be made available.
Self-loading rifles are being issued to complete scales of T.A. units. This programme was set back because of our commitments to India in the emergency there about a year ago but will be resumed shortly and, if the planned programme is adhered to, we should have the T.A. fully equipped with these rifles by 1965. The training scales of new weapons are being issued as they become available—these will include infantry weapons and some guns—while a proportion of the instruments and fire control equipment has been issued.
I agree, however, that this is not enough and we are doing our best to step up the issue of equipment and clothing to the T.A. We are aware of the very strong feeling both in this Committee and in the T.A. itself. These points are vigorously brought home to me at meetings with the T.A. Advisory Committee, of which I am chairman.

Sir A. V. Harvey: My hon. Friend says that he wants to get modern radio equipment for the T.A. by 1968. Surely, in time of peace, there should not be such a time lag. By planning and subcontracting surely the War Office can do better than that.

Mr. Kirk: We are doing our best, but we cannot do better than that at the moment. I cannot promise any earlier completion date, although we will do our best to hustle it.

Mr. Shinwell: Surely there is a reason for this delay. I cannot discuss other Votes at the moment but the reason here surely is that the estimate for stores and equipment is down by £8,800,000. This reduced expenditure is said to be due to production delays, and so on. But may not that be just an excuse? May not the reason be that we have to pay our debt to the United States for support costs during the Korean War?

Sir A. V. Harvey: And before—the £1,000 million loan the Labour Government negotiated.

Mr. Kirk: I should not be in order if I discussed that.

Mr. Paget: Is not the real point here that, if we push on with these orders, the War Office will get too much in this year's Estimates? Is not this a matter of keeping down the Estimates by deliberately postponing deliveries of goods to less essential units like the T.A.?

Mr. Kirk: I cannot accept that. We are doing our best to equip the T.A. as soon as possible.
The right hon. Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell) spoke about drill halls and jazz bands. With some trepidation I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in this. I think that this is a matter for the T.A. Associations themselves. The general rule is that when these drill halls are not required for training they can be lent for almost any other purpose except a political one. I do not know what is the political composition of the right hon. Gentleman's jazz band.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: There is no political composition at all. It was a youth organisation which made the inquiry and the facts were presented to the Secretary of State for War and subsequently to the Dunham headquarters of the T.A. I have been called to the telephone from Newcastle—apparently there was a note that I had raised the matter this afternoon; by the way, I was able to transfer the charge, or I should not have phoned—and there is to be a song and dance about this.

Mr. Kirk: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because I think that this is a matter for the association, which is the responsible body in this regard.
I was asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) about overseas training. Last year, about 2,500 men went overseas for training, which is a little less than 2½ per cent. of the total. As my right hon. Friend announced in January, with the increased connection between the T.A. and B.A.O.R., we are hoping to get more units to train in Germany if we possibly can. My hon. and gallant Friend will have seen in paragraph 113 of the Statement on Defence that 2,400 soldiers of

the 44 Parachute Brigade Group took part in an exercise in Cyprus and that 200 soldiers of the T.A.E.R. were flown out to Hong Kong and Singapore while others accompanied the 2nd Green Jackets on an exercise in Libya. We are hoping to increase that as far as we can, because we realise that it is important from the training point of view and obviously an attraction to those who may volunteer for the Territorial Army.
The hon. Member for Dudley put forward, as he did last Thursday, a scheme for bringing the T.A. into a pre-Proclamation rôle rather than a post-Proclamation rôle and for making it smaller but better trained and equipped. This type of reorganisation is to be avoided if possible. "Reorganisation" is rather a dirty word to the Territorial Army which has just settled down after the last, and I would hate to inflict upon it another upheaval of this kind. We must be careful not to prejudice the morale of this all-volunteer force by changing its character drastically. The solution is much more to try to step up recruiting for the T.A.E.R.
I was interested in the comments which were made on this force. It is perfectly true, as I said on Thursday, that we have not achieved with the "Ever-readies" the success for which we hoped in the first instance. The present position is that recruiting is just under 5.000 strong. It went up towards the end of last year—November and December were good recruiting months for the T.A.E.R.
I do not think that the problem is entirely one of employment. Members of the T.A.E.R. are, of course, guaranteed reinstatement in their civil employment, although such a guarantee by the nature of things can extend for only six months after their return from service. It would be extremely difficult for any Government to extend a guarantee of this kind and thus limit an employer's right to select his own labour.
The problem is rather more of a number of men who would like to join, but who are frightened that by joining they will jeopardise not so much their employment as their prospects of promotion within the firm and the general way in which their careers will develop. This is an exceedingly difficult problem and one to which we have lately been giving a great deal of thought. We have


close relationships with the employers' organisations. Both my right hon. Friend and I have been in touch with them by correspondence lately about the revision of the leaflets about T.A.E.R. which we sent to the employers. We try so far as possible to take their opinions about the best way in which we can recruit for it, but I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) has said and see whether we are making quite enough contact with the employers' organisations.
The problem, as the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris) said, is rather more with the small than the big firms and it is obviously more difficult to get in touch with the smaller firms. But we will do everything we can to see that we march in step with the employers.

Mr. Shinwell: That should have been thought of at the beginning.

Mr. Kirk: We gave considerable thought to it before we started the scheme and we learn as we go along. This was an experiment and, like all experiments, adjustments have to be made from time to time.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I remember that this question was raised when the T.A.E.R. was first discussed. We all said that this scheme would work only if the employers were contacted. My hon. Friend has underestimated what his own Department has done—and I know that he has done a great deal—because, as the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) will remember, many of us, including myself, raised this point at the beginning.

Mr. Kirk: That is what I said in reply to the interjection of the right hon. Member. We thought of this at the beginning, but we are now in the process of thinking it out again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West raised the subject of a reversion in rank for those in the T.A. who wished to join the T.A.E.R. We have gone into this with very great care, because it was forcibly brought home to us that there were a number, of N.C.O.s particularly, who might be prepared to revert in rank on call-up to the T.A.E.R. if there were no vacancy for someone in their rank in the "Ever-

readies" themselves. The problem is that one must be careful not to denude the T.A. of its best people, so we have decided that it would not be practicable to allow this in the ranks of sergeant and above, but we have agreed that it should be allowed in the ranks of corporal and lance-corporal, or bombardier and lance-bombardier. We hope that some of these men will be prepared to accept this obligation on a condition of reversion of rank.
The hon. Member for Aberavon suggested that we might have a kind of trial call-up once a year of some men. This might be a mistake not only for the reasons mentioned but because it might make employers even less anxious to see people join the T.A.E.R. than some are at the moment, and also because this would exhaust men's liability to service in the T.A.E.R. It is rather difficult to call people out unless there is a real need for them.
This brings me to the last point I want to make in reply to a comment of the hon. Member for Dudley, who very fairly asked why they were not called out in the last few weeks. Of course international repercussions are part of the reason, but I think that it is quite clear that if they had been needed, if there had been such a necessity for them that the crisis could not have been coped with in any other way, they would have been called out. If the situation should arise or the situation get worse, consideration will have to be given to calling them out. It is not a case, as the hon. Member for Aberavon appeared to suggest, of the possibility of international repercussion preventing them from being used in a time of necessity.

Mr. J. Morris: I gave two reasons. One was the need and the other was the international repercussions.

Mr. Kirk: I may be unfair to the hon. Member, which is the last thing I would wish to be, but he seemed to feel that we needed them desperately a month ago and that international repercussions prevented them from being called out. It is a combination of the two. One has to have a proper balance about when one calls them out and on balance it seemed that they were not needed so overwhelmingly in the last month or two. But this does not mean


that they will never be called out. Quite the reverse, they remain the first and most immediate line of reserve and therefore considerably important.
I hope that I have answered most of the questions. I should like to write to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye about commanding officers. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) also raised the subject.
I assure the hon. Member for Dudley once again that we take this question of the proper provision of reserves very seriously. We are not satisfied with the present position and we keep it under constant review. The review of the reserves which took place two or three years ago yielded the Navy, Army and Air Force Reserves Act and also considerable knowledge of the pattern of reserves in this country. We are constantly keeping an eye on the situation to see how best we can cope with it. As I have said, the most immediate task is the building up of the T.A.E.R. and we intend to go ahead with that so far as we possibly can.

Mr. Paget: The most important comment was that of the hon. Member for Maccleslield (Sir A. V. Harvey) about recruiting "Ever-readies" through the employers as we have failed to recruit them direct. The hon. Member said that he would reconsider approaching employers' organisations, but that was not what the hon. Member for Macclesfield intended. This has to be an approach at the highest level, not to employers' organisations, but to employers.
It is true that we would have to pick the big employers, but I see them being approached in this way: "You have so many Territorials you are employing; it would be only a reasonable quota if you sent so many and we would be very grateful for your encouragement to these men; will you tell your Territorials that if a certain number of them were available, that would be very much with your blessing and that their promotion and pay would be made up, as this would be of great assistance to the country?".
I see this sort of approach being made to individual chairmen. With an approach at that level, employers could be made recruiting agents. That is the

way to do it and that is what I thought the hon. Member for Macclesfield had in mind.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Sir A. V. Harvey indicated assent.

Mr. Kirk: I should like to look at that. We are in touch both with employers and employers' associations on the whole subject of the T.A.E.R., but we will certainly consider that further suggestion.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: My hon. Friend has not answered two questions which I thought he might have been able to mention. One is why the figure of £800,000 in respect of the pay of the Regular reserves has gone down to £580,000 and the second is whether he will say anything about the War Office intentions regarding training all reservists to keep them up to date.

Mr. Kirk: The answer to the first question is that this is due to a reduction, a running out, in the numbers of paid reservists. Section A and T.A.E.R., are the two most immediate reserves, Section A people having left the Army within the last year or two, and therefore well-trained, while the T.A.E.R. members receive training while in the T.A.E.R. of course, in the event of general mobilisation when we had to call up everybody it would not be practicable to have them all in a high state of training, although Section D reservists have an obligation to be in a high state of training, an obligation which is not in force at the moment, but which could be brought in if necessary.

Mr. Wigg: Will the hon. Gentleman clear one point for me? In 1961 in the Queen's Speech we were promised an examination of the reserve forces and, following that, we got the Reserve Act, 1962. The examination went on and we recently had another Act. Is that all that is to happen? Will the Government wait until the end of the liability of National Service men for six months and then introduce another reserves Bill, or are they content to leave things as they are and is the examination which we were promised in 1961 now coming to an end?

Mr. Kirk: It is fairer to say that the examination of 1961 is now almost a permanent review of the reserves. We are constantly looking at the whole of


the reserve position. We are acutely aware of what will happen in 1966. The last Act was part of the process. I cannot forecast exactly how it will go on and how much will be public and how much will be done in the Ministry of Defence, but we are keeping this matter practically on a day-to-day basis to ensure that the whole of the reserve position is considered.

Mr. Shinwell: During my absence the hon. Gentleman may have dealt with the question of training for the T.A.E.R., but I should like to be satisfied about the position. There may be some difficulty about providing training at weekends, and so on, but it seems to me that there is a special reason why members of the T.A.E.R. should have rather more effective training than ordinary Territorials. Can the hon. Gentleman give us any details of the training received by the T.A.E.R.? Can he also tell us whether it is the intention of the War Office to step up the training of the T.A.E.R.?

Mr. Kirk: Part of the difficulty is that the T.A.E.R. is technically part of the T.A. Until it is called out, it is part of the T.A. The bounty is payable solely because of the liability to call out. The training obligation is the same as that of the T.A., except that there must be at least a fortnight's camp, whereas members of the T.A. do not in all circumstances do a fortnight's camp.
I referred to paragraph 113 of the Memorandum. We have started to try to get T.A.E.R. people out on exercise outside the country, and we have been fairly successful in that. We hope to do more, but, as I said, members of the T.A.E.R. are essentially part of the T.A. They are not separate from it until they are called out, and their training, therefore, is good or bad only in so far as T.A. training is good or bad. I shall, however, consider the point to see whether we can step up T.A.E.R. training, but it will be difficult to do so without upsetting the relationship inside the T.A.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Can my hon. Friend enlarge on that? I asked whether he would consider whether those who wished to do a longer than usual period of training with A.E.R. than was prescribed would be allowed to do it.
Secondly, following on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), if my hon. Friend's approach to employers does not do what we all hope it will do, will he consider setting up some sort of machinery like the machinery which exists for disabled people whereby firms which are given Government contracts have to employ at least 2 per cent. of disabled people?

Mr. Kirk: I shall look into the first point, but I think that there may be difficulties over the second one. Not all firms have a large number of employees who are members of the T.A.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £21,480,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 153,000, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 147,000 other ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 221,000, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

Vote 8. Lands, Buildings and Works

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £9,670,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of lands, buildings and works, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

Mr. Hendry: During the last week or so most hon. Members have received representations from Devon about land being spoiled by being used as training areas. It makes me wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is as yet aware of the fact that there are parts of the United Kingdom other than the south of England which are suitable for military training. I have raised this matter before. In Scotland there are many tracts of country which are suitable for military training. My right hon. Friend undertook to look into the matter, but nothing seems to have been done about it.
6.15 p.m.
I also remind my hon. Friend that Scotland is probably the best recruiting area in the whole of the United Kingdom. The Highland Regiments—I had the honour to belong to one—are an


outstanding example. As Scotland contributes to the personnel of the Army, it is only fair that the Army should consider using Scotland for training these people, because our soldiers leave and we do not see them again.
We in Scotland seem to be losing our contact with the Army. A number of our towns were once garrison towns. I mention, for example, Glasgow, which now appears to have no regular connection with the Army, Stirling, which for hundreds of years was a garrison town, and Perth. Some time ago I had some correspondence with my right hon. Friend about the use of Fort George, but I have heard nothing about that since, and I should like to hear from my hon. Friend what the War Office intends to do about using part of Scotland as a training area and about maintaining its valuable connection with the Army, because if we lose this connection the value of Scotland as a recruiting area will diminish.
Scotland is a development area. Other Government Departments are doing their bit to bring assistance and money to those parts of the United Kingdom which a re in need of development, and I should like my hon. Friend's assurance that this aspect is not being forgotten by the War Office.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I understand that under Subhead B it is possible to raise the question of married quarters. I hope that my hon. Friend will take into consideration what was said during the debate the other day about providing married quarters. In particular, I should like an answer about the possibility of money being expended to build married quarters on the existing barrack sites in Germany. I realise that there are many difficulties involved, but on two occasions I have suggested that this is the easier way of providing married accommodation because it would avoid an additional load on the West German building industry and would also avoid the difficulty of having to get local planning permission.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee regard the provision of married quarters as one of the most important factors not only in attracting men to the forces but of keeping them in the Service, and I hope that my hon. Friend will answer this point

which I have raised on three occasions but to which I have not as yet had an answer.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: Under Subhead D money is to be set aside for purposes which include forestry. In the past, forest lands held by various Service Departments have tended to suffer because thinnings have been neglected, and so on. I should have thought that it would have been the policy of the War Office to make over as much of this land as possible to the Forestry Commission, which is in a better position to deal with it. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether, on the land held by the War Office, thinnings are being attended to, and whether the land is being managed according to the best principles of forestry?

Mr. Kirk: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) raised the question of the use of Scotland as a training area. He said that Scotland had had a close connection with the Army in the past, and that of course is true. It is equally true that the Highland area is one of our best recruiting areas, and that the Highland Brigade is one of the best recruiting brigades, and we are, of course, anxious to do nothing which might weaken the connection between Scotland and the Army.
The difficulty is that the large open tracts in Scotland do not provide good going for tanks, and are therefore difficult to use as tank ranges. Secondly, and possibly more important, for obvious reasons, the Strategic Reserve is concentrated in the South rather than in the North. It is therefore difficult to use the open land in Scotland for the type of training which would benefit the strategic reserve. I will certainly bear in mind what he said. If we can see any way of increasing the use of Scotland for training purposes we shall certainly consider it. It is surprising to find anyone offering us training land in this country, and I shall be glad to see if there is anything that we can do in the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) asked whether we could use barracks sites in Germany for the building of married quarters. He is probably aware that the building


of these quarters in Germany at the moment works on a so-called "multiple hiring" system, the idea being that if and when we leave Germany those quarters will become available for purely commercial exploitation inside Germany. That is why it would be difficult to erect married quarters inside the barracks themselves.

Dr. Glyn: Could not we use portable homes?

Mr. Kirk: We are using mobile homes to a certain extent, but there is a limit to the number of sites that we can obtain. The preparation of sites for caravans and mobile homes is extremely complicated and difficult—much more difficult than might be expected. It means a large capital outlay for something which we may be removing fairly quickly, and it would be difficult to put them inside the barracks.
As for forestry, the forestry element is run by men who are trained by the Forestry Commission. We keep in close touch with the Commission and take its advice on every relevant occasion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £9,670,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of lands, buildings and works, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

Vote 9. Miscellaneous Effective Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,450,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including grants in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

Mr. Lipton: The point I wish to raise is concerned with Subhead G "Council of Voluntary Welfare Work", rather than Subhead A. The problem that arises is a real one, especially in Germany and other overseas stations. In units which are stationed overseas it is not uncommon for the number of wives and children in married quarters to exceed the strength of the unit. It imposes a considerable burden upon the commanding officer of a unit if, as was the old tradition, he acts as a kind of father confessor and adviser to the wives and families of the men who serve under his command.
I understand that the Council of the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association, which has done excellent work in this connection for many years, has been in touch with the War Office with a view to seeing what additional arrangements or services it can provide. I understand that one regiment appealed direct to the S.S.A.F.A. to train welfare officers to help commanding officers to deal with the family problems of the men.
I do not know what happened when this matter was referred to the War Office, but it would be interesting to know what has been done or is being done by the War Office, because we now have a different type of Service man's wife than we had years ago. She is generally younger, better educated and better dressed. The class distinction between officers' wives and soldiers' wives is much narrower now, if it has not disappeared. If we go to a unit where the wives and families of both officers and other ranks are living together on the same estate, unless we know that a certain house has been allocated to a sergeant or a corporal, it is not easy to know whether it is occupied by the wife and family of an officer or a Service man.
This situation creates a problem which it is not within the scope of a commanding officer to deal with. He has a lot to do, and if he has also to cope with the thousand and one problems of many wives and children his task becomes a very difficult one. The problem requires to be dealt with. That is why we should provide properly trained welfare officers—not necessarily Service men or women, but people provided by organisations such as S.S.A.F.A.—to help to make the wheels run more smoothly than they have been running in the past.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I should like to ask a brief question on Subhead B "Publicity and Recruiting Services". At the moment, each Service seems to be rather jealous of its own recruiting publicity. I wonder whether it would be possible to have some sort of combined operation between the three Services, first, on the design of recruiting posters and, more important, on the question of combined recruiting centres. All three Services might benefit if there were


co-operation rather than competition between them.
This question deserves careful consideration. My hon. Friend has produced some extremely good advertisements. I was particularly impressed by one over the weekend in the Sunday Times. But at this time, when we are talking about the integration of the Services it might be a good thing for them to get together so that the whole operation could be carried out as a corporate and joint effort. This is especially the case in relation to recruiting centres. Can my hon. Friend give us some indication of the Government's thoughts on this?

Mr. Kirk: We are only too conscious of the need to provide welfare services in Germany, especially now that no less than 47 per cent. of the other ranks are married. That is a very high percentage. These soldiers often need help to settle down in the rather strange environment of North German towns. I am grateful for the help that we receive both from the S.S.A.F.A. and the W.V.S. With most large units, or large concentrations of troops, we have W.V.S. help. This help is immensely valuable for both married and single soldiers, when it takes the form of running clubs. We should like to do more, and we intend to do so.
We are well aware of the fact that this high percentage of married soldiers and families imposes an additional strain on the commanding officers of units. I am glad to say that most commanding officers are prepared to shoulder this burden, but it is one of which we should like to relieve them as much as possible.

Mr. Lipton: And the commanding officers' wives.

Mr. Kirk: And the commanding officers' wives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) will have noticed that the small sum in the Estimate is not that which covers our general publicity, and to some extent that answers his point, because all the advertising and television publicity is done through the Central Office of Information, in close consultation with my Department. This means that to some extent there is already co-opera-

tion, because all the Services do the same thing.
As for joint recruiting centres, in the last year we have greatly increased the number of centres which are side by side, so that it is a matter of walking only 10 steps or so from the Army recruiting centre to the Navy recruiting centre. We are looking to see how much more we can do along these lines. I will write to my hon. Friend with further details when I have them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,480,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including grants in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

Vote 10. Non-effective Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sure, not exceeding £35,140,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, including a grant in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Paget: During the debate on the Estimates I made the point that we shall not get recruits from Service families while the older members of the families are left with a sense of grievance about their pensions, and, in many instances, in a state of penury. I suggested then, and committed myself to the proposition, that we should have the same pay and pensions—and, of course, by pensions I include half-pay—for the same service regardless of when that service terminated. That is to say, all pensions should be paid on the basis of what would have been paid had the pensioner retired at the time of the introduction of the latest rate. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary has available now precise figures of the cost of this proposition. He may have them, as I raised the matter in a previous debate. If not, perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. Kirk: I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman the figure of £75 million across the whole field. I think I am right in saying that the total for the Armed Services is about £12 million.

Mr. Paget: My other point refers to a much smaller figure, that relating to the


Polish ex-Service men. I see that that figure has been increased from £50,000 to £75,000, through the British Legion, but from talks which I have had with these old gentlemen I do not think that we are dealing with the matter in the right way. What they want—it is a tremendous feeling of sentiment—is that their service should be recognised and they should receive a military pension. A start could be made at age 60, or age 65, and they could receive a pension, as they would have had if their service had been with the British Army. I have looked at the figure of the difference between what they would receive on this basis and what they receive from National Assistance and it is extraordinarily small. But the receipt of a pension would have an immense effect on their morale, and I hope that this matter will be looked at seriously.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised the question of pensions for Polish ex-Service men. Anyone who knows of their service in the last war will have a great sympathy for them. I know that some of these men have re-established themselves extremely successfully, but there are hard cases. I am glad to note that the provision for them has been increased by £25,000 but I wonder whether that is sufficient to deal with all the hard cases. These men are getting older. Their circumstances were always difficult. Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell the Committee how far this increase will meet the need of the hard cases. Many hon. Members have sympathy for the Polish officers and men.

Sir H. Harrison: I am glad that the Committee is having this short debate on pensions. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the increase in these pensions represents only 1½ per cent. over the figure for the previous year. The amount spent in respect of the Regular Army is 9 per cent. and of the Territorial Army 3½ per cent. These men, who have given good service, get the least. I endorse what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) about the importance of older members of a family—who served at a time when the rate of pay was not as high as it is today—

receiving an adequate pension. Members of families with a tradition of service, whether officers or other ranks, should have the feeling that they are getting a fair deal.
I pay tribute to the great work done by the Officers' Pension Society, which alerts Members of Parliament. I should like my hon. Friend to consider, with the members of the Army Council, the thought that many high-ranking officers—though they fight battles with the Treasury and with other authorities on behalf of the troops under their command—are apt to forget those whose service has been completed. It is not entirely due to the politicians that some pensions have lagged behind in amount. Some of this responsibility must rest with high-ranking officers who appreciate the difficulty only when they have left the Service. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the needs of retired officers, and also of the widows of former officers, as their difficulties are often much greater.

Mr. Lipton: I wish to plead that the War Office and the Service Departments should face the need to reduce the number of pension scales which cause the amount of a pension to depend on when the Service man left the Service, or on the date when he died. It would be an act of justice if that were done, and many of the hardships would be removed if we had only two or three pension scales.

Mr. James Griffiths: Why not one?

Mr. Lipton: There may be some difficulty in establishing only one rate of pension, although I do not know what it may be. I should be satisfied if the numerous pension rates were reduced to the lowest possible number and the lowest pension gradually brought up to the rate of pension enjoyed by those people who are now leaving the Service.

Dr. Alan Glyn: This is a thorny problem but there does not seem to be much difference between the point of view of hon. Members on either side of the Committee. The real problem is, how much are we prepared to spend in order to see that justice is done? My hon. Friend referred to an "across the board" figure. But I agree with the hon. and


learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that Service people are in a different category. They have risked their lives and spent a great deal of their Service career abroad, and I think that there is a case for regarding them as being in a different category from other pensioners.
Let us have one category for a person who has attained a certain rank and become entitled to a certain pension. When that pension is increased, all the pensions in that category should be increased. Equally, apart from the question of equity, we must look at this matter in a realistic way in order that justice may be done to a small section of the community and to show that we genuinely intend that benefits shall be equal for those who have served in the past as well as those who will serve in the future. Service men leave the Service under rather different circumstances from those that obtain in the case of civil servants who retire. I do not think that were this awful doctrine of immutability accepted by their side—I may be anticipating what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton has in mind——

Mr. Paget: The tremendous difference is that a Service man retires so much earlier than a civil servant and that by the time he gets his pension it will have depreciated considerably.

Dr. Glyn: I had not anticipated quite all that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton had in mind.
I know that my hon. Friend cannot commit himself today because this is an important matter of policy, but I hope that he will accept the view of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and convey it to the appropriate quarter, to see whether some thing may be done in the near future.

Mr. Archie Manuel: This Vote deals with terminal grants and gratuities. I am not sure whether it applies to the Royal Ordnance factories. It is stated on page 125 of the Estimates that:
This Vote provides for the expenses of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories; some expenditure on common services is, however, borne on Army Votes".

I should like to know whether gratuities and terminal grants are borne on any of the Army Votes with which we are now dealing or whether I must wait until we come to the Royal Ordnance factory Vote before raising this point. I do not want to miss my opportunity of raising it, because it comes directly under the Army's jurisdiction in day-to-day operations.

Mr. Kirk: I think that I am right in saying that this is solely for the fighting Services. The point which the hon. Member wishes to raise comes under the Royal Ordnance factory Estimate.

Mr. Manuel: What does the statement on page 125 mean—
This Vote provides for the expenses of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories; some expenditure on common services is, however, borne on Army Votes"?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): We had better discuss that when we discuss the Royal Ordnance factories.

Mr. Kirk: I should like to say a word or two on pensions. We discussed this matter last Thursday. I said—and I must hold to this view—that I did not think that it would be possible to isolate Service pensions from public service pensions generally. It is perfectly true that if we could confine this to the Services it would cost only £12 million—I say "only", but it is still quite a sizeable sum—of which about £8 million would be for the Army, but I doubt very much whether it could be done. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) may say that he can distinguish in principle between them. I dare say that he is right, but I doubt whether the same view would be taken by other public service pensioners. The pressure for an increase on their behalf would be extremely strong and we would then be faced the higher figure—which I believe would be the true one—of £75 million, which is a great deal of money.
I think tact we must, therefore, fall back on trying to improve the situation gradually through the pensions increase Measures. As I said last Thursday, the last one—the sixth since the war—was the first which tried to make an advance. Instead of trying to catch up, it tried to


get slightly ahead of the situation. It probably did not go very far, but I feel that we are trying to make a limited compromise between the two opposing theories of immutability and parity. I do not think that I could go much beyond that today.
Perhaps I could look at the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) about Polish ex-Service men and write to him.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £35,140,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, including a grant in aid, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

Vote 11. Additional Married Quarters

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: The question of married quarters is important, and it has become increasingly important since the war. In this Vote we are referred back to pages 120 and 121, where we can see how the money is being spent. I note that the new works on married quarters to be started next year will amount to only about £250,000. This is a considerable reduction in the married quarters programme.
The Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts have been a great boon to the Services in bringing about up-to-date married quarters. The last was passed in, I think, 1958. Presumably, therefore, we are not running out of money. In these circumstances, it is surprising to find that only £250,000 worth of new works are being undertaken, of which £94,000 will be expended in the next year. This appears to be a very sub-

stantial reduction in the married quarters programme. It seems to conflict with my recollection of the Statement on Defence which placed some emphasis on the provision of more married quarters. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State could explain the discrepancy to me.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Kirk: My hon. Friend will know that the second Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act, the 1958 one, runs out next year. We have not yet decided whether to renew it. It has been agreed that a three-year programme covering £47½ million will start this year to take up where the Act leaves off. It is hoped that this will bring up the total number of married quarters to a figure adequate for the Army's purposes.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Does this apply only to the loans or to all the quarters?

Mr. Kirk: Does what apply?

Dr. Glyn: Vote 11.

Mr. Kirk: Vote 11 is largely a token vote which is largely set off by appropriations in aid. The major sum for married quarters falls on the Ministry of Public Building and Works Vote.

Dr. Glyn: May I remind my hon. Friend about the point which we raised earlier, namely, the possibility of persuading local authorities to put ex-Service people on the housing list? Could pressure be put on authorities which receive a subsidy from the Government to make them accept ex-Service men on the housing lists? Perhaps my hon. Friend will consider this point.

Mr. Kirk: As I said last Thursday, I will look into this matter again. I realise the difficulties of local authorities.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

Army Supplementary Estimate, 1963–64

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,500,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

Schedule



Sums not exceeding



Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid



 £
 £


Vote




1. Pay, etc., of the Army
—
*-1,300,000


2. Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces
640,000
*-300,000


3. War Office
160,000
—


4. Civilians at Out-stations
2,480,000
230,000


6. Supplies
210,000
400,000


7. Stores and Equipment
Cr. 8,800,000
*-2,500,000


8. Lands, Buildings and Works
1,120,000
*-220,000


9. Miscellaneous Effective Services
8,360,000
170,000


10. Non-effective Services
330,000
*-70,000


Total, Army (Supplementary), 1963–64 £
4,500,000
*-3,590,000


* Deficit.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: May we have an explanation for the under-spending on Vote 7?

Mr. Kirk: The gross sum under-spent of £11·3 million amounts to about 10 per cent. of the Vote. The general reason is production delays, but these result mainly from design and development difficulties in the introduction of new equipment. It is always extremely difficult in this field to foresee at the time of preparation of the Estimate, six months before the year starts, what progress will be made. With a production Vote of this variety and complexity, one cannot hope to be accurate, except by luck. We were unlucky.
Expenditure is not charged to Vote 7 until complete equipments are delivered.

Difficulty with one component may hold up deliveries over the whole field. Therefore, no expenditure will fall on the Vote meanwhile.
The Estimate for 1963–64 was particularly difficult to frame because of the unusually large number of new equipments coming to the Services. It is in the later stakes of development and trials that unforeseen snags are liable to occur and setbacks in production can build up quickly. This has happened over stores and equipment where we are overspending owing to a rapid build-up of production. I can answer detailed points if the hon. Member wishes to put them to me.

Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will agree that this is a most surprising amount of under-spending, £11 million consistently over the whole range, A, B, C and D, on stores and equipment. Possibly there may have been a special case of some particular item which was behind and one could understand that, but over the whole range this is very considerable. It strikes a rather ironic note for those who work in Royal Ordnance factories which are to have their production curtailed, such as the R.O.F. in my constituency.

Mr. J. Griffiths: And the one at Pembrey.

Mr. Mayhew: There is the one at Pembrey. What proportion of this under-spending is on account of R.O.F. production and what proportion on account of private enterprise? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is an extraordinary thing in a year in which Woolwich R.O.F. is being closed down and it might be suitable for the production of some of these items, that we have this fantastic under-spending on stores and equipment?

Mr. Griffiths: I am not sure if this is an opportune moment to raise another question about the Royal Ordnance factories, or whether I should raise it on the next Vote.

Mr. Kirk: It is a little difficult to break this down as between R.O.F.s and other establishments. The reasons for under-spending are many and varied. For instance, on weapons and instruments £400,000 represents a deliberate


diversion of production to India and that goes off the spending by the War Office. There is £2,500,000 connected with production difficulties in relation to Thunderbolt 2, but these could not amount to more than six months in a four or five-year programme. This is simply carried forward. Other items include the American Ranger forklift truck, which was held up by an American dock strike and amounts to £200,000. There was the heavy floating bridge project, which set us back £½ million. It is difficult to pin down the particular cost, or to make an analysis as between R.O.F.s and private enterprise. Perhaps I could write to the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), or he might put down a Question in answer to which we could give the figures, but I have not got them with me now.

Mr. Mayhew: I ask particularly whether there is a shortfall in production of armoured troop carriers by Sankeys. This concerns the whole future of the R.O.F. at Woolwich.

Mr. Kirk: I think there has been no shortfall on that.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,500,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

Royal Ordnance Factories

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,400,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am glad of another opportunity of raising questions about Royal Ordnance factories. I had an opportunity in an Adjournment debate of raising the question of Pembrey, and my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has mentioned the R.O.F. in his constituency. Woolwich has many historical associations and Pembrey has wonderful associations in its record of service.
The question I raise may not be replied to by the Parliamentary Secretary

this evening, but I should like him to look at it. Under this Vote we provide for wages, salaries, pensions and gratuities for those employed in Royal Ordnance factories. I want the hon. Gentleman to look carefully, and I hope sympathetically, at the problem of men who become unemployed through the closing of these establishments. Pembrey will close down at the end of the year and 400 persons now employed will be out of work. I have given the figures to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I think he accepts them. A large proportion will be of men 50 years of age, and a number of them will be over 60. I understand that some of them will get gratuities, but I am not sure what the scale of gratuities will be. I believe that is by arrangement between the War Department, formerly Ministry of Supply, and the appropriate trade unions. That is for the unestablished workers, and I suppose there is a general rule for the established workers.
When men become unemployed at 60 years of age, they find it very difficult to get other work. Under our National Insurance schemes persons are not entitled to a pension until they reach the age of 65. There will be a period when some of these men who will lose their jobs at the end of this year will be looking for a job before they become entitled to pension. Of course, they will get credits, but five years is a long period. I wonder if the War Office has taken into account the fact that these men of 60 will be in great difficultly in finding employment. If the War Office and the Ministry of Labour can find jobs for them, that will get over the difficulty. They are competent and skilled men, but it is not at all easy, indeed it is very difficult for those over 60 to get work with a new employer in a new establishment. In a sense it gets more difficult now than it did in the days when I was in industry.
With mechanisation, automation and the speed that that involves, employers are often reluctant to employ older men to work with machines. There are difficulties in learning new skills, keeping up the pace and guarding against dangers when working with machinery. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will look at this problem, for these men have rendered good service in peace and in war. Many of them have given 15,


20 or even 25 years' service. Now the factores are to be closed and their services dispensed with. Some who are established will be offered employment elsewhere, but what is good of offering alternative employment to a man of 55 or 60? He is in the declining years of his life and will find it very difficult. The State and this House owe a duty to see that these men are adequately provided for I am anxious that when these men's representatives raise this matter with the War Office the War Office will look at it sympathetically as the Committee would want it to do, because it will be dealing with men who have given great service to the country.
I understand that in the last two or three years the War Office has been reviewing the work of all the Royal Ordnance factories and making decisions on what it is expected will be required of them in future, whether there is inadequate or surplus capacity. I think the War Office has come to the conclusion that it has surplus capacity and therefore some R.O.F.s will be closed. Pembrey is one, Woolwich is another and there may be others.
7.0 p.m.
When the decision is made as to which Royal Ordnance factory shall be closed, which are the criteria upon which the Department arrives at the decision? If I mention other Royal Ordnance factories it is simply to bring out the point. For example, is there consultation between the War Office and the Board of Trade? The Board of Trade is responsible under the Local Employment Act for looking after certain areas which they think are areas of high and persistent unemployment and to schedule them as areas which become eligible for the help provided under the Act. These are areas in which the Government provide assistance to enable industrialists to settle there. Is this taken into account?
For example, why close Pembrey in an area scheduled by the Board of Trade and keep open Bridgwater in an area not scheduled by the Board of Trade? I make no complaint about Bridgwater. I am raising an important principle. Surely the Government as a whole consider the matter when these proposals are made to close down a factory, with the consequent unemploy-

ment. This is reported, surely, to the Ministry of Labour before the decision is made so that the employment exchanges involved may know about it. Surely the Board of Trade is notified, being concerned with the distribution of industry.
When the decision was made to close Pembrey, did the Board of Trade agree to closing the factory and putting 400 to 500 men out of work in an area which the Board of Trade have scheduled under the Local Employment Act? I should be very surprised indeed if they did. For example, I shall be surprised if the Board of Trade said, "Close Pembrey and keep Bridgwater open", in view of the fact that they have scheduled Pembrey and have not scheduled Bridgwater.
When the factories are closed, what will happen to them? This is the property of the State, and millions of £s have been spent in building and equipping these Royal Ordnance factories. I hope that my right hon. Friends will shortly form the Government, and I hope that they will take a leaf out of the book of the 1945 Labour Government in contrast with what the Government did in 1919 and 1921. Pembrey is an example, but there are others, such as Bridgend. These are valuable properties and they can be used for civilian purposes.
It is sometimes said—I do not know whether this is true, and I put it to the Under-Secretary of State—that by convention and tradition the production in certain fields by the Royal Ordnance factories is conditioned by arrangements made between the War Office and private industry? Is this true? Is it true, for example, in the production of some kinds of explosive? This is believed by some people who work in those factories, who think that the Government are not playing fair by the nation and who think that the Government ought to give orders for their own work to their own factories in preference to private industry.
During discussions on other Votes, the Under-Secretary has admitted to a shortage of all kinds of equipment. I listened to him with great interest. Here are factories with services of all kinds—communications, roads, electricity, gas, all the services which are required


for modern industry. I hope that we shall use them.
At the end of the year Pembrey will be closed and offered for sale. I do not know whether it will be sold, but if it is sold, then I hope that it will be to a firm which will undertake to use the whole of these valuable premises and all their services, and in that way provide employment which is still badly needed in the area.
In considering whether more work is needed not only in my area but throughout Wales, it is not fair simply to go on the percentage of unemployment. That is also true of Scotland. It is necessary to add a figure for depopulation to arrive at the right unemployment figure in an area such as mine, in other areas of Wales, in Scotland and in parts of England. I hope that if these factories, in particular Pembrey, cannot be sold, then they will be used.
I do not know the cost of building Pembrey, but it must have been substantial. Millions of £s were spent in building the Royal Ordnance factory during the First World War, but when the war was over it was sold for scrap and the contractors extracted all that was valuable. They left behind ugly debris hanging all over the place. When we were again in peril in the late 1930s and had to prepare for what became the Second World War, the War Office or the Ministry of Supply came back to Pembrey and cleaned up the mess. That must have cost tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of £s. They then built the new factory, which has been kept going until now, when it is to be closed.
It is a splendid factory, with splendid buildings, on a splendid site. It has a fine team of men. I plead again with the Under-Secretary that the Board of Trade and the War Office should reconsider the matter. If the Government's policy is to sell to private enterprise—very well; but suppose private enterprise does not want to buy it? What then? I think that the Government themselves ought to run it, for producing the many things which we shall need. That is why I took this second opportunity of saying a few words about this very valuable national property.
It is our business to look after national property. Our predecessors in 1919 and 1920 did not do so but allowed Pembrey and other factories to be sold for scrap. I hope that we shall not do that again but will ensure that national property is used for national purposes, not only to provide employment for people in the locality and communities which depend upon it but to provide the wealth of the nation.

Mr. Mayhew: I have had opportunities already in the House to raise with the Minister the proposed closure of the R.O.F., Woolwich, and I do not propose to repeat the grounds on which the great majority of Woolwich people are wholly unconvinced by the reasons given by the Minister for the proposed closure. Last week I had a chance to put some Questions to the Under-Secretary of State on this and other War Office matters of great importance to my constituency. To a good proportion of those Questions I received an informative and helpful reply, but on the major Question I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State to give me a reply which he did not give me on Thursday.
What rôle is the War Office playing in the planning of the future development of the whole arsenal site, comprising about 1,500 acres? On paper the War Office is not the body responsible for planning this enormous area of Woolwich, but in practice, because it happens to own 600 acres which are central to this huge area, the War Office, as chairman of the working party which is deciding on who will get what bits of this land, is responsible, not only for what will happen to the smaller area but to the whole 1,500 acres, all of which is in the London postal district. The decisions which the War Office will take may affect the whole of my constituency, as well as West Woolwich, the hon. Member for which is not in his place, and thus that part of Woolwich is not represented here tonight.
Does the Under-Secretary realise that to get the roads system in this area properly planned there must be comprehensive development and that, if that development is to be put on a proper basis, housing, industry and traffic conditions in the area must also be


planned comprehensively? 'Why is it, therefore, that the War Office is chairman of the key committee on which the planning authority itself, the L.C.C., is not even a member? Is this not an extraordinary thing?
On 191h March the Government's plan for South-East England is to be published. I will study it carefully to see what rôle has been cast for this vast area of Woolwich. I suspect, on the current performance of the Government, that there will be no reference to this matter, although it is of vital interest to my constituency. As I say, we need a comprehensive plan and, to get it, we require the establishment of a working party on which the L.C.C., Woolwich Borough Council, the Board of Trade, British Railways and, admittedly, the War Office and a number of other interested bodies are represented.
This must be a large-based working party which will create the master plan for this area covering about 1,500 acres. I urge the Under-Secretary not to prejudice this extremely necessary development by using merely his small working party which, though small, has power over this land, of which, because of freak circumstances, the War Office happens to be in charge.

Mr. Manuel: I wholeheartedly support the remarks of my hon. Friends about the problems of Royal Ordnance factories. However, I wish to deal with a more limited question remembering that it has always been recognised that when the Estimates are being discussed an hon. Member is able to raise a matter concerning not only a section of his constituency but even a constituent.
I have always contacted the War Office whenever raising a matter concerning a R.O.F., and I admit that I have always found that Department and those responsible for its administration extremely helpful. I am not concerned tonight with the closure of R.O.F.s but with the superannuation regulations covering payments and gratuities made to those who work in them. Although these payments have formed part of a high tradition with which we have regarded employment in these factories, I have recently been brought face to face with a case affecting a constituent of mine where, it appears, this high standard and tradition has been broken.
7.15 p.m.
Under which part of our legislation is an individual who has served in a R.O.F. for a great number of years denied the payment of a gratuity? Having full knowledge of the individual involved, the case, his loyal service and other implications, I say frankly that a harsh decision has been made affecting my constituent, whom I will not name, because of a slight misdemeanour. Being aware of all the facts involved, I have no hesitation in using the word "slight" in this context.
The Department can confirm that this man has put in 23 years of loyal service. One would find it difficult to find a more loyal worker. Because of a slight misdemeancur—being found with two sodden cigarettes about 12 yards from the canteen in his lunch break—he was dismissed. Despite his 23 years' service he has not received his gratuity. I am not claiming that any individual should not be severely dealt with if found carrying contraband in an enclosed area, but the circumstances in this case were by no means so outstanding, for the man was not carrying any matches or anything which might have imperilled the area. As I have said, the incident occurred during his meal hour. In this case there were extenuating circumstances, and had I been the trade union organiser acting on his behalf I would have taken the matter to the highest possible level to ensure fair treatment.
The Under-Secretary is aware of the case and we have been in correspondence about it. I appreciate the fact, in his letter to me, that he had to refuse payment because of the way in which the superannuation regulations are drawn. I claim that those regulations compare unfavourably with similar types of schemes run by the best employers in this country. There are several large employers in my constituency and, on making inquiries, I have found that treatment as harsh as that meted out to my constituent is not the practice. Why should this man be subject to this harsh treatment under regulations which were made probably many years ago?
I appeal to the Under-Secretary, whatever the circumstances of severance payments, gratuities or terminal payments, to do something in this case, despite his refusal to grant payment of this gratuity. I plead with him to hold out a


hope that this case will be looked into again and that his Department will consider what happens in similar large industries and in similar cases so that this man does not receive such harsh treatment after giving 23 years' loyal service in a R.O.F.

Mr. J. Morris: I want to add my voice to the voices of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) in expressing the concern felt over the closing of Royal Ordnance factories. My right hon. Friend has put up a tremendous battle for Pembrey, and we in South Wales have looked to him for leadership. I know that I looked to him for leadership very much at the beginning of the year, when we had industrial troubles in South Wales.
Pembrey must be very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his efforts, and he has today put his finger very realistically on the real problem of what is to happen to men of 58 and 60 for whom there is no longer employment at the Royal Ordnance factory. These men have rendered great service to the State and, in return, the State should give them adequate consideration. I hope that my right hon. Friend's remarks will be heard in the appropriate quarter, and that the War Office will give the matter sympathetic consideration when the usual negotiations take place.
My right hon. Friend asked whether the Board of Trade had been consulted before this factory was closed down. The impression in South Wales is that while the Board of Trade at one moment is trying to attract industry to these areas, at the next moment other industries are closing down. It seems that the left hand of the Government frequently does not know what the right hand is doing. There may be arguments for the closing of this factory, but we in South Wales are very concerned about what use is to be made of this place, and what are the future employment prospects in the area.
When we leave the particular for the general aspect, we find that the same problem is faced by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East. There is a general suspicion that work is not going to Royal Ordnance factories but

to private industry. On this issue, the War Office should be like Caesar's wife—above suspicion; but the Government have not established that. I am deeply suspicious, and it will take all the persuasive charm of the Under-Secretary of State to convince me that what we suspect is not actually happening. We want to know how far Royal Ordnance factories and other factories are affected by the short-fall in weapons shown in the Supplementary Estimate.
It is the Government's philosophy not to allow publicly-owned factories to have the full chance to produce, but to give every incentive to private industry. We see that in the running down of railway workshops. The Government's philosophy applies to every part of industry, and I hope that the Under-Secretary can assure us that these Royal Ordnance factories are not being closed down merely in fulfilment of the Government's philosophy, but on grounds of the Army's need.

Mr. Kirk: As I have said before, this very difficult question of the closing of Royal Ordnance factories is one that my right hon. Friend and I dislike probably more than any other. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) for the restrained way in which they have spoken about these difficult problems today. The general points in both the cases they raised have been covered in Adjournment debates, and we also dealt with matters relating to the Royal Ordnance Factory, Woolwich, on Thursday last.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the gap faced by those retiring at 60 until they receive their retirement pension at 65, but that state of things will apply only to non-established people. I repeat that established persons retiring at 60 are entitled to their pension, and that those retiring at over 50 years of age and before 60 years of age can have their pension frozen, and then pick it up at 60. I certainly undertake that the case of the others will be looked at very sympathetically. As the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members know, I am chairman of the War Department Industrial Council on which all trade unions are represented, and I undertake personally to see that this point is looked at.
With regard to surplus capacity and the reason for closing Pembrey, as I explained in the Adjournment debate, the reason was simply that Pembrey's main purpose was to provide T.N.T., and we have too much T.N.T. at the moment. We tried to keep the factory going with ammunition breakdown work, but that has run out. There is no question, as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to suggest, of choosing between Pembrey and Bridgwater. Pembrey has a totally different capacity. Bridgwater's job is to make high-explosives and plastic propellants, which cannot be adapted to the type of work done at Pembrey. The work to be transferred from Pembrey to Bridgwater and Bishopton will be a very small part of the work at those Royal Ordnance factories, but there was no alternative to closing Pembrey.
I was asked whether the Board of Trade was consulted before the decision was made. The Board of Trade was consulted, but the decision was ours, and we are not trying to put it on to any other Department. As for the future, I have noted what the right hon. Gentleman had to say. I think that the only justification for putting the Royal Ordnance factory on civil work would be if we could see some prospect of its again being used as an Ordnance factory. We cannot see that prospect at Pembrey, and we feel that it is much better——

Mr. J. Griffiths: I warn the hon. Gentleman that that was what they said in 1921, but they had to come back.

Mr. Kirk: But warfare has changed a little. With the development of nuclear weapons, the amount of T.N.T. needed in future must be much less than it was in the past.

Mr. Mayhew: Why is it so important? When the product of a private firm becomes outdated it can go into another branch of work. Vickers no doubt made round-shot at one time, but transformed itself for other work, and Ordnance factories could do the same, instead of their being constantly throttled in this way

Mr. Kirk: I do not think that that is fair. The Royal Ordnance factories are there to supply the Armed Forces with weapons, and cannot go over to private industry in that way. It might be argued that the case was different

when we had the Labour Government, on the grounds that one could not see when we might want a factory again, but, with the development of nuclear weapons, it is quite certain that we shall not again need that enormous quantity of T. N. T. and Pembrey, in its present form, is not much use for the production of anything else. It has to be decontaminated and, when it has been decontaminated, we shall put it up for sale as a whole.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East asked me to answer a question to which I did not reply in Thursday's debate. I apologise for that, though I am sure that he will remember that, as it was, I had to move along at tremendous speed in order to try to cover all the points raised in that debate. Even so, I must confess that I may have misled the Committee over the Chieftain tank. It is true that this tank will come into service next year, but I also said that most of B A.O.R. would be equipped with it next year. That statement was wrong; I should have said 1967–68. Nevertheless, some of the B.A.O.R. will be equipped with this tank next year.
I did not have time on Thursday to mention the review. The Inter-Departmental Committee under the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for War has on it representatives of the planning Departments; the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is represented, as is the Board of Trade, and so are the other Service Departments. But this is an inter-Departmental body, not a body for Liaison between Government and local authorities. At the same time, we have said over and over again that the normal planning procedures will be gone through; that is to say, the local authorities, both the L.C.C. and the municipal borough councils, will be consulted. We have no desire to do anything that might upset any of them, but we think it best, first of all, to see what is the Government's need for the site. Once that is clear, we can go ahead and see what the need for other people is. We are the landlords. We have to dispose of it in the way which is most suitable to all the interests concerned.
7.30 p.m.
I well remember the case to which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) referred. I would not have


said that this was a slight misdemeanour. The carrying of tobacco or cigarettes inside an explosives factory is very dangerous and has always been regarded as one of the most serious offences that an employee of a Royal Ordnance factory can commit. I would not, therefore, feel inclined to urge the manager of that factory to reverse his decision to dismiss the man in question, but I agree, to this limited extent, that the regulation which provides that any man dismissed for misconduct loses his superannuation seems very harsh. I cannot comment usefully on that today because it applies to the whole of Government service and not just to the War Office. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue the matter further his remedy might lie in other directions.
I would repeat to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris) what I have said on innumerable occasions—that the Royal Ordnance factories receive from this Government 80 per cent. of the work which they are equipped to do. This has been the position in the past and, with the exception of the Sankey order for the A.P.C., it will be the position in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,400,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

Purchasing (Repayment) Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expenditure incurred by the Army Department on the supply of munitions, common-user and other articles for the Government service and on miscellaneous supply, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

Sir H. Harrison: I should like to put two or three points briefly to my hon. Friend. Has he any idea how much of the clothing purchased would be used by the forces during the current year? Or is it going into stock? The amount of stock and the slow turnover worries many of us.
On the subject of general stores, it has been brought particularly to my notice that when Government Departments or

Service Departments are ordering a certain type of quite ordinary goods they often ask that they should be packed in a certain way. I am thinking of an example where the goods were required to be packed in large, heavy wooden crates with goodness knows how many screws in them, whereas the firm concerned sent these goods all over the world in cardboard containers in the ordinary course of trade. This requirement about packing merely doubles the price.
I am sure that the Committee would like to know that there is tight control over the buying of stores, including clothing and equipment, for the Services. I should also like my hon. Friend to say something about the non-Exchequer customers mentioned in Item 7. Are they buying goods at more than the cost price, or do these goods come within the enormous quantity of material which is sold as surplus to Government requirements?

Mr. Kirk: As my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware, this form of Vote is unusual in the sense that it never balances from one year to the other. On this Vote also the War Office acts as agent for other Government Departments and also as a general disposal agent for surplus requirements. It is difficult for me to give detailed answers on the points he has raised. Some stores are held for a long time. Others are turned over very quickly. Unless we got down to the precise details it would be difficult to pinpoint those which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. If he has a particular item in mind I will see whether we are turning over the stores as quickly as we should be.
I will look into the question of packaging. I have recently looked at a new form of packing case, but it would not work for various reasons which I can explain to my hon. and gallant Friend. We try to keep an eye on this matter, but it is difficult because we do not want to be caught short, particularly as we have to supply other Departments as well as my own. I will, however, reply to my hon. and gallant Friend on this point.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Is my hon. Friend sure that the requirements of the Army are satisfied before anything is disposed of as surplus?

Mr. Kirk: Yes, we make sure as far as we can, but we cannot foresee exactly what the requirements will be at any given time.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expenditure incurred by the Army Department on the supply of munitions, common-user and other articles for the Government service and on miscellaneous supply, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES

Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Air Force

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £136,500,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: We come back here to pay as we did in the case of the Army, and I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can tell us a little more about pay agreements and whether the Services are ever likely to have a long-term pay agreement like that which has been announced for the Civil Service. Is flying pay still given, and how is pay to serving officers covered in review? What provision is made for long-service pay?

Mr. Frederick Motley: The time has passed quickly, and we do not want to take too long over these Estimates, but in addition to dealing with the points made by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison), I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm that the increase in this Vote is due largely to increased pay and that there has been no other basic changes in the arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman said in the Estimates debate last week that a review was in progress in connection with overseas allowances. Presumably such a review was likely to recommend higher allowances. Has this matter been settled, and is the figure in the Vote for overseas allowances calculated to cover the increase contemplated by the review? In particular, is there provision in the Vote

for the decision, which I understand has already been taken, to pay an overseas allowance to the R.A.F. at Gatow and Berlin?
I also raised in the Estimates debate the question of education allowances, which is a particularly contentious point with serving officers who feel that they are being less fairly treated than are members of the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office. The Under-Secretary made the point, and there is some force in it, that the schools provided for the R.A.F. are not usually available in the vicinity for the families of diplomats. At the same time, I feel that if there is to be a review, as the Plowden Committee suggests, of education allowances for the overseas services of other Government Departments, Service people should be brought into the picture and should have an increase comparable with that granted to the diplomatic service.
I wonder, also, whether there is any differential for those officers who are serving in places where there are not R.A.F. schools. For example, in Washington and such places, just as there are Foreign Service officers, there are air attaches. When they are in exactly comparable circumstances to Foreign Service officers, are they given the same allowances in respect of boarding schools and free passages for their children to enable them to visit their parents?
On the general issue of recruiting I am sure that we are all pleased to know that there are no serious recruiting problems. The figure reported by the Secretary of State was extremely encouraging, although we know that the Service is contracting, and that makes the recruiting problem somewhat easier.
I should also like to know whether the Under-Secretary has anything to tell us about the rather special problems which have beets discussed before about doctors an I dentists.
Finally, can he say a little more than he was able to tell us in the previous debate about the new scheme for the ground trades which is to be introduced on 1st April? The White Paper says that it is proposed to have a new career structure for the ground trades, and we should like to know whether this involves higher expenditure and in what


way it is claimed by the Government to be superior to the existing arrangements.
I am sure the Committee agrees that adequate provision for ground trades is an essential part of the job of the Royal Air Force. We not only require skilled aircrews, but we have to ensure that we have adequately trained and paid technical people to do the important job of keeping the aircraft serviced. Therefore, it is important to know, first, that there is a proper scheme for these personnel, and, secondly, with the run-down that must have affected many of the ground crews—the blockage following Thor and so on—whether there is dissatisfaction in the Service and whether there are complaints that promotion opportunities have been blocked as a result of the contraction of the Service.
The Committee will be obliged if the Under-Secretary can deal with some of these points. One understands that to expect the hon. Gentleman to answer a lot of questions is asking a great deal. He complained on a previous occasion that I had asked 21 questions. Today I shall probably ask more than 21 questions, because that is the only useful thing we can do in a debate of this character. However, if we ask him too many detailed questions which he is unable to answer off the cuff, we shall not hold it against him.

Mr. Frank Taylor: I should like to refer to the R.A.F. Regiment. This Regiment has a very fine history and an equally important future. However, it seems to be very much out of the public eye, for we hear very little about it.
It would help me and others as well, no doubt, if we could hear how the R.A.F. Regiment is getting along, how its numbers are deployed, whether recruiting is up to expectation and, more important, what is its future role. Is the need for it increasing or diminishing? Can my hon. Friend say anything about its future recruiting requirements?
I understand that there is a new trade structure, and I should like to know how that is progressing. Is it up to expectation, or does it require revising?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Ridsdale): I should like, first, to thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) for his reference to the questions which have been asked and my ability to answer them. I shall do my very best. It is good to know that he is sympathetic to my problems.
I should like, first, to deal with the questions which were asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison). The increased estimate in Vote 1 is the result of the increases in pay which have been announced from 1st April this year. These increases stem from the third of the biennial reviews which the Grigg Committee recommended should be held. As hon. Members know, the object of these reviews is to ensure that the Service man is not left behind as national prosperity increases.
7.45 p.m.
On this occasion the increase will be of the order of 7½per cent., which, since it is taken over a period of two years, is well in accord with the Government's incomes policy. Broadly speaking, the increases amount to about is. 6d. in the £, although room has been found for special improvements where we felt it necessary, or as an incentive to recruiting. To give a few examples, a recruit gets 1s. extra a day, a sergeant an extra 2s. 6d. a day and a squadron leader an extra 5s. 6d. a day.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye asked about a long-term agreement such as the one announced for the Civil Service last month. This long-term agreement was made after the Service review had been completed, but, since the pay of officers is linked to that of certain Civil Service grades, this settlement will clearly have reprecussions on officers' pay in the next review. However, it is impossible to be specific on this point since the Civil Service grades concerned are the subject of a pay research exercise. Nevertheless the awards which are finally given will, of course, be taken into account in the 1966 review. We would certainly be prepared to consider the desirability of a similar long-term agreement for the Royal Air Force. As I say, we have only just finished the third of the biennial reviews recommended by the


Grigg Committee, and so far they have all worked exceedingly well.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye also asked about R.A.F. long-service pay. The system by which N.C.O.s get special recognition by way of higher pay for long service has been altered to bring it into line with that of the Army and the Navy. Up to now, increments have been given for total service and service in a particular rank. This has caused one or two anomalies which will be made worse when the new pay structure comes into force later this year. In future, extra pay will be given for total service only and so will give greater reward for the long-service N.C.O.
I was asked about flying pay. At present, flying pay is given to all flying officers up to the rank of air commodore, provided they are completely fit to fulfil the flying commitment. They are paid whether or not they are actually in a flying job. However, under the new career structure which was introduced in 1960, officers can serve until they are 55 and, if medically fit, they can go on drawing flying pay up to the date of their retirement. But, of course, the chances of their ever getting a flying post diminish sharply towards the end of their career.
In future, the rate of flying pay for officers on the general list will be reduced gradually by two-year steps from the time that they are 47 until it drops to a minimum of 5s. a day. Flying pay was originally introduced in 1950. This does not mean that an incentive is not now needed, but we cannot justify paying the full rate to officers who are unlikely to be called upon to fly again.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park asked about local overseas allowances which are paid to Service men at certain stations abroad to meet the essential extra costs as compared with the United Kingdom, in order to maintain a reasonable standard of living. The rates of allowance vary from area to area. In each area there are different rates according to the man's rank, whether or not he is married and, for those whose families live with them in the overseas area, whether they are living in married quarters or in accommodation rented privately. The allowances for each area

are reviewed periodically, normally at interval; of three or four years, but there are arrangements for revision when it can be shown that costs abroad have increased more than in the United Kingdom.
In the Air Estimates debate I was able to give the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park some information about Berlin, when I told him that in the past local overseas a lowances had not been paid to those air personnel serving in Berlin, although an allowance is paid to those serving in West Germany. The reason was that the overall costs incurred by the Service men in Berlin have not recently exceeded those incurred in this country. However, as I mentioned the other night a recent review has shown that current prices there justify a small rate of local overseas allowance.
For single and married personnel not accompanied by their families, this rate will be the same as for West Germany. The rate for married accompanied men will be less than for West Germany because personnel in Berlin have special facilities for buying the more important foodstuffs at low cost from R.A.S.C. sources and N.A.A.F.I. prices in Berlin are slightly lower than in West Germany. The Berlin rates will apply as from 1st July, 1963, although a slight adjustment in the married accompanied unaccommodated rate will be necessary on ls April, 1964, to take account of the increase in marriage allowance which takes place on that date.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park asked me about Service education allowances. We discussed this the other evening in the Air Estimates debate and there is not a lot more that I can say. Allowance; are often the only form of assistance available to those serving abroad in the diplomatic services, but the Royal Air Force helps parents in various ways—for example, by providing a range of free Service schools both for day and boarding children in the main overseas areas, by paying local school fees where schools are not provided and by paying educational allowances for children at boarding school or in a guardian's care when attending day school. At present, over 80 pet cent. of Royal Air Force children of school age attend Service schools overseas or day schools in this country.

Mr. Mulley: I pressed today the point that there are some—perhaps not a large number—officers and airmen who are away from centres where there are other R.A.F. personnel and, therefore, they cannot take advantage of any general arrangements which are made. If they are serving as air attaches they are in identical circumstances to diplomats. I wondered whether people in that situation were given any different treatment from those who, the hon. Gentleman has said, have these other facilities open to them.

Mr. Ridsdale: I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I was coming on to deal with the point. Those people have no different allowance, but, obviously, this a point which we shall note, because if the foreign service is treated differently, we shall have to see whether anything is necessary. That is as far as I can go at this stage. There is, however, an increasing tendency for parents to make use of the assistance available towards boarding education at home. The children of 5,100 officers and 1,500 airmen are benefiting in this way. A wide range of schools is used, including many boarding schools maintained by local education authorities. For example, the London County Council has recently allocated 120 places in a new hostel for the children of Service men serving overseas. Nevertheless, as I said the other night, the increases recommended by the Plowden Committee for the Foreign Office must clearly be considered by the Service Departments. This is what we shall do.
I was asked about the recruitment of doctors and dentists. At the time of the 1962 pay review, it was clear that the Services could not hope to attract young doctors of the right quality unless they could offer them a substantial improvement over the remuneration which they could expect in civilian life. The pay scales for the medical services were, therefore, revised accordingly.
Since then, civilian doctors and dentists have received a pay increase and under the 1964 Services Pay Review, therefore, increases have been given which are intended to restore the differential established in 1962. We have introduced other measures to attract doctors, including improved prospects of promotion and a greater degree of

recognition of experience and general practice outside the Service. I hope that this will achieve the desired result. At present, we are 30 or 40 doctors short, but similar measures in respect of dentists have proved even more effective and the Dental Branch should be fully manned in the next few months.
I have been asked also about recruiting and the lull in recruiting, as well as the trade structure. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park mentioned, the total number of recruits which we have needed has been a good deal less than in previous years because of the progressive reduction in our needs. This phase of low recruiting is, however, nearing its end and, although vacancies are still few, the numbers will pick up considerably from about the middle of the year. We shall then once again be out to attract substantial numbers of recruits and far fewer will have to be turned away. The effect of these reductions on career prospects has been taken into account, although there has been a slowing down of promotion to the rank of sergeant and above. The new trade structure for airmen has a bearing on this point.
The new trade structure, which comes into force on 1st April, 1964, divides the R.A.F. trades into two main groups: the list one trades with the higher skills and the list two trades of semi-skilled and administrative trades. Under the new scheme, all tradesmen will be required to pass successive examinations for promotion. The list one trades, subject to this proviso, will be subject to time promotion to the rank of corporal, sergeant and chief technician. In the list two trades, promotion to these ranks will be against establishment vacancies coupled with the higher rate of pay for increased trade skill.
In detail, the transitional arrangements for transferring airmen to the new trades structure are quite complicated although the basis of the change is that we are moving from a complex system to a much simpler one. It has, therefore, been a big task putting the new arrangements across to airmen and explaining to each individual how he is affected, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. F. Taylor) will, The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park and however, be glad to know that the


arrangements are working very well and smoothly.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park asked about the effect of manpower reductions on promotion opportunities. As to officers, many factors are involved in determining rates of promotion, probably the most important being the age/rank structure in a particular branch and the extent to which officers retire at optional points. Promotion can be maintained to some extent by adjustment in age bands, encouraging voluntary retirement after the age of 50 and, as a last resort, by redundancy schemes. However, the general reductions of the past four or five years, including the end of the Thor programme, have not of themselves created major promotion bottlenecks. By and large, their effects have been contained within our general arrangements for controlling promotion.
In the rather complex structure of the ground' trades, overall reductions in establishment do not necessarily cut down chances of promotion since much depends upon the ratio of posts between one rank and another and the length of engagements on which airmen are serving.
There are two ways in which we are keeping to a minimum the effect of the reduction of career prospects. The first is by removing certain inequalities of opportunity between trades. This is done by the 1964 trade structure. The second is by limiting to some extent the numbers who stay on for a career to the age of 55. Nevertheless, I should emphasise that plenty of opportunity remains for pensionable engagements of 22 years. Apart from this, the introduction of the 1964 trade structure in April will help with the promotion problem in some sectors by introducing a measure of time promotion for certain more highly-skilled airmen.
The voluntary free discharge scheme, introduced before Christmas, has also helped by providing a number of extra vacancies among senior n.c.o.s. Clearly, the problem of promotion where numbers are falling can be difficult. We are taking, and will continue to take, all possible measures to maintain the prospects of a worthwhile career. I assure the Committee that morale in the ground trades is good and also that far-reaching changes in the trade structure have been well received.
8.0 p.m.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side about the R.A.F. Regiment. It has a strength of about 4,500 officers and men and is organised into 10 L.A.A. and field squadrons. Four are in the Far East, three are in Cyprus, one is in Aden, leaving a strategic reserve of two field squadrons in the United Kingdom.
The Parachute Squadron is allocated to Transport Command but is available for emergency operations which do not concern Transport Command. It has, indeed, just been deployed to Cyprus. The regimental personnel are trained in the basic infantry rôle but the squadrons are also able to convert quickly to the light anti-aircraft rôle.
The regimental squadrons are responsible for the ground defence of the R.A.F. but are used for a variety of roles. Regimental personnel are playing a valuable part in the peace-keeping rôle in Cyprus. They are also responsible for the fire services at Royal Air Fore stations. Some 2,400 of the personnel are engaged in these duties. We have no difficulty in getting recruits and find no problem in training the men for the variety of important tasks they are called upon to perform. At present there are no plans for enlarging the Regiment.

Mr. Mulley: Will the hon. Gentleman look again at the question of the local overseas allowance in Berlin? I understood him to say that it would be paid as from 1st July last. We are glad that the Air Ministry has at last recognised that there is a difference in the cost of living as between West Berlin and this country, but it seems extraordinary that this has taken so long. Quite a number of personnel will have been posted away from Berlin since 1st July last year. I hope that the allowance will be paid to the men very quickly indeed.
Obviously, I have not the statistical evidence with me, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look again at the differential between costs in West Germany and those in Berlin. This has always been the fall-back answer by the Air Ministry for not paying any local overseas allowance to Berlin. Now the Air Ministry says that it will pay an allowance. If the hon. Gentleman goes into the stiles of N.A.A.F.I. charges in


particular he will find that they are the same in West Berlin as in West Germany.
A grievance will still be left behind unless the hon. Gentleman can substantiate for our men in West Berlin the reason for the difference between them and their colleagues at R.A.F. stations in West Germany. Unless he can make the position clear there will be trouble. This aspect should be looked at again.

Mr. Ridsdale: We are well aware of the motto,
He gives twice who gives quickly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £136,500,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

Vote 2. Reserve and Auxiliary Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £809,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services and cadet forces (to a number not exceeding 44,240, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 1,260, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

Sir H. Harrison: Those of us who are members of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations are always glad to hear at our meetings the reports of our county or cadet forces. I should like to pay tribute to a detachment in my constituency at Stowmarket which appears always to be extremely smart and well turned out. It seems to me from time to time that some of these cadets either win a scholarship or get air passages to the R.A.F. overseas. Is this generally done so that these air cadets—or some of them—can do their annual training overseas? Can my hon. Friend also say whether these cadets can now get gliding training as well?
I pay high tribute to all who take part in the voluntary services and I particularly wish to speak about the rôle of the Royal Observer Corps. I have written to my hon. Friend about some of the officers and men who served in the Corps in the past. This year, under the grants and allowances for spare-

time officers and observers, there is a slight increase of £8,000. Does this mean that my hon. Friend expects there to be more spare-time observers and officers or that there is to be at last an increase in grants and allowances for these men, who take such great pride in the very essential job they are undertaking?

Mr. Mulley: Will the Under-Secretary of State also say something about the university air squadrons? There seems to be some dispute about their rôle and cost. As far as I can see, the only item in this Vote is £1,000. Surely these squadrons cost rather more than that?
Are flying scholarships taken into account? I believe that the R.A.F. sends a number of promising young men to university at its own expense. They are given pay and allowances while there. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the numbers involved in this scheme?

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Earlier this evening, discussing the Army, we were concerned with auxiliary forces—the Territorial Army—and I want to refer particularly to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force in this debate. Will my hon. Friend tell us something about it? I know that at the moment he is not concerned about its numbers, but it is only a question of time before the Government will be concerned.
The voluntary principle in such forces is worth keeping. Years ago I deprecated it when the R.A.F.V.R. was diminished greatly in size and importance and I should like to hear more details. What is it now doing? Is it capable of expanding and of playing an effective rôle? We are all very proud of it. I know that there is such a body and we should certainly like to know how it is working.

Mr. Ridsdale: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) asked about the air cadet forces. The officer strength has tended to rise and now stands at 3,950. The Air Training Corps cadet strength has, however, fallen, with the disbanding of a number of uneconomic squadrons, to 28,500, although the number in the R.A.F. section of the Combined Cadet Force has increased to more than 9,000 following the overall review and reorganisation of the force.
As my hon. and gallant Friend will know, basic sections were abolished in 1963 so that the boys now go directly into the Service cadet section of their choice. I should like to say what a good source of Royal Air Force recruiting the Air Training Corps is. In the 12 months up to 31st December, 1963, it provided 960 aircraft apprentices and boy entrants, or 41 per cent. of the total entering the Royal Air Force, 68 Regular airmen, or 20 per cent. of those required, 31 Regular airmen—aircrew, or 36 per cent., 119 officer cadets, or 40 per cent. of those required, and 188 direct entry aircrew, or 42 per cent. of those required. Numbers have fallen with the general decrease in recruiting needs, but ex-air cadets have maintained or increased their contributions to the intakes in all categories. They deserve great praise for this.
I was asked by my hon. and gallant Friend whether aid cadet forces have camped overseas. Facilities have been made available for air cadets to attend R.A.F. stations in Germany, beginning with the Easter and Summer camps in 1964. The 740 cadets selected will pay towards the cost of hired charter flights necessary to transport them to and from Germany, but the sum they pay will be only a small nominal one.
I am glad to say that the air cadet forces have been doing quite a lot of gliding. I am sure that this will please my hon. and gallant Friend. Despite the severe winter, which made gliding impossible in the early months of 1963, I am glad to say that the air cadet gliding organisation has again excelled itself. Two thousand two hundred and thirty-one gliding proficiency certificates were awarded to those trainees reaching the elementary glider pilot standard, and of these 167 reached advanced standard and 67 obtained soaring certificates. In the first full year in which young cadets were flown as passengers, 20,266 flights were made by some 7,000 cadets. Despite the closing of certain airfields, the organisation achieved the excellent total of 136,345 glider launches.
The 350 flying scholarships awarded to air cadets have continued to be fully subscribed. The 100 special flying awards made available in 1962 to qualified boys who are interested in joining the R.A.F. but who have no air cadet

organisation at their schools were fully taken up, and by the end of 1963, 67 awards had been made from a further allocation of 100 places. Both schemes will continue into 1964–65.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) asked me about the university air squadrons. At present there are squadrons at 18 universities, the latest recruit being the University of Wales Air Squadron, which was formed in August, 1963 at the R.A.F. St. Athan. The squadrons continue to be a valuable source of recruits to the Royal Air Force, and last year 56 ex-university air squadron members were awarded commissions 40 as aircrew. The hon. Gentleman asked about the cost of the university air squadrons. It is about £1,300,000, the same as three years ago. The cost of the new squadron in Wales has been ment by economies elsewhere.
8.15 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the important source of officer recruits, the university scholarships which are given to officers to do their training there. I have not got the exact figures with me, but we are very pleased with the new scholarship scheme. It is being very well subscribed and is an exciting new potential source for the recruitment of officers. I will give the hon. Gentleman further details later.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) about the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. Its four maritime Headquarter units at Northwood, Plymouth, Belfast and Edinburgh continue to recruit and train volunteers for the important rôle of reinforcing the operational control organisation of Coastal Command. During the last year there has been a steady flow of recruits, although this has been partly offset by members leaving. One of the difficulties is that in a highly trained technical force useful jobs can be found only for those who have recently retired and whose skills consequently are still being practised.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Was that the sum total of the activities of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force?

Mr. Ridsdale: I am sad to say that the Royal Auxiliary Air Force at the


moment is composed of the four squadrons of Coastal Command. It is a sad day, when one considers the great work which was done by this force, that we are able to find only those four squadrons at present. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will take note of this point. If it were possible to do something to expand this part of the Service, we would certainly do it.
I was asked by my hon. and gallant Friend a question about the Royal Observer Corps. I visited the Corps camp last summer in Norfolk. The question about pay was put to me. I have made inquiries and have found that at present most people say that the present scale is enough for getting the numbers that are needed. I do not want to appear to be complacent about this. I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the observations he has made have been noted by me and by the officials in the Air Ministry.

Sir H. Harrison: My hon. Friend says that the pay is sufficient to get the numbers required. This may be so. Is that pay fair for the numbers that are there?

Mr. Ridsdale: I have looked into this. I have satisfied myself that at present it is fair. If my hon. and gallant Friend knows of any further case I will look into it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £809,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services and cadet forces (to a number not exceeding 44,240, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 1,260, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

Vote 7. Aircraft and Stores

Motion made and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £234,250,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of aircraft and stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

Mr. George Wigg: The first point on this Vote is that it has decreased by £8,810,000. As this is a deliberate result of Government policy,

one's first thought is to congratulate them on achieving what they set out to achieve. I beg leave to doubt, however, whether the reduction is a good thing for the Royal Air Force and the nation at large.
I am not satisfied that all the money the Committee is being asked to vote is well spent. I have tabled a number of Questions to all the Service Ministers asking about contracts which were granted to Ferranti Limited in respect of the Bloodhound. Some of the cost of the maintenance of some of the Bloodhounds must be borne on this Vote.
I do not want to probe too much into that question, but I ask the Under-Secretary on behalf of the Government to give the Committee an assurance that where cases of excess payment are discovered, by the firms themselves, or as a result of investigations by whatever Service Department it may be, or as a result of investigations by the Public Accounts Committee, the money which has been overcharged will be refunded to the public. I go further and ask that in such cases when it is discovered that excessive amounts have been charged and refunds are due, no further contracts will be placed with those firms until the matters in question have been cleared up to the satisfaction of the Government.
There is no doubt that both sides of the Committee regard the burden of defence expenditure at 2,000 million as grievous. Most of us accept the necessity, but it is incumbent upon us to see that the money voted is properly spent. I am sure that the public has the right to expect us, as the guardians of the public purse, meeting in Committee of Supply, to take every precaution to insist on all the safeguards reasonably possible in a free society to make certain that when money has been spent which ought not to have been spent the public does not lose and that those, whether through neglect or for any other reason, who obtain that money shall not benefit from it. We have a right to be sure before passing these large sums of money that the Department concerned has been satisfied that procedures have been reexamined in order to make sure that similar happenings do not occur.
I am one of those who hold the view that the rôle of the Royal Air Force is primarily to carry the Army and to provide it with support and cover. I am very much on the side of the R.A.F. in the controversy with the Navy. I made my views on this subject clear earlier. I am optimistic enough to believe that the new set-up which we are to have in the Ministry of Defence will harmonise the conflicting interests and that when there is a conflict about types of aircraft, or the introduction of new aircraft, or the renovation of old, the public good will prevail on the basis of an objective analysis of the problems with which that Department of the Ministry is concerned and not considered in terms of providing a soup kitchen for the aircraft industry, as has happened too often in the past, or a soup kitchen for the shipbuilding industry. I hope that these problems will be considered objectively in the best interests of the Service Departments as a whole and that the one must be complementary to the other.
In the last week I have expressed my grave doubts about the way in which our defence policy has been distorted by what I regard as the over-pressures coming from the Navy Lobby. Supporters of the Navy Lobby may preen their feathers and pat themselves on the back, but a heavy price has to be paid, and I think that it will be paid by the Air Force. This decrease of £8 million is direct evidence of that and is one of the factors. A number of orders for aircraft should have been taken many months ago, but they were not taken because of the conflict behind the scenes, a conflict between the Navy and the Air Force of which we see only the signs.
We are told—and I hope that this will prove to be right—that the Ministry of Defence will harmonise this and that next year we will have Estimates which are realistic and in which we can have confidence. However, I wonder whether the new Minister will consider what we get. The McNamara report—[Laughter.]—hon. Members may smile but they ought to study this report. This weekend have re-examined its detailed information and the adult way in which it is presented to the American Armed Forces Committee. These Estimates have two pages—pages 148 and 149—covering £234 million.

Mr. William Ross: Anonymous millions.

Mr. Wigg: Exactly. We are told absolutely nothing. The McNamara report has inches of close type and there is even an index so that one can turn up aircraft, missiles, bomber force, surface-to-air missiles and work out that on 30th June the Americans will have 1,122 missiles. Nothing can be worked out from our Estimates, although we know that Britain has no missiles.
These Estimates add nothing to our understanding of the controversy about the V-bomber force and Blue Steel. The McNamara report tells us how many Hound Dog missiles the Americans have and how many are at the alert. Any responsible member of the House of Representatives, or of the Senate, or for that matter, any member of the American public, can look at this report and say that while 50,000 million dollars is being spent at least there is a group of men who are seeing that the nation is getting value for money. The facts which one needs to know are given; people are given the information on which to make up their minds.
We are spending £2,000 million on defence—£234 million on this Vote—and yet there are not 10 Members present in the Chamber and we have only two pages in the Estimates telling us nothing. I do not know much about City affairs, but if hon. Members were directors in the City they would not raise tuppence on this Estimate as a prospectus. We are asked to vote £234 million, and all I know about it is what I read in the Press and by reading mostly American sources—which is all one has to rely on.
I know something else. I know that in the fight for power the aircraft carriers and the Phantoms have won. If they have won and the Air Vote has gone down on aircraft, the battle has been won at the expense of the Royal Air Force and of the Army. On my view of the problem which faces this country in defence, I know that this cannot be good for the Navy; I do not believe that it is good even for the victors, because I believe that the policy is an unrealistic one. I know that it is not good for the Army. I am certain that it is not good for the Royal Air


Force, and I am certain that it is not good for the taxpayer and for the country.
But whether one thinks it good or bad, Members of the Committee who come to this problem with fresh minds, who come to consider it in an adult assembly, in a responsible assembly, in an assembly with a Government which has nothing to hide, should be given in these Estimates the information on which they can come to a decision. But we are told nothing. We say that we are proud of this thing, and of that thing, and we pay lip service to them, but we take whatever they pour out from the benches opposite without knowing whether it is right or wrong.
8.30 p.m.
This is not the first time in our history that this has happened. Over the weekend I read a book by Mr. Devine called "The Blunted Sword". I wish that I had read it last week, because it had a lot to say about the Royal Navy. I wish that I had read it before we had our debate on the change of name from the Navy Board to the Admiralty. I cannot pretend to know whether the story told in the book is true, but it goes back into our history. Why should one have to go to that source to discover this information? Why does not some hon. Gentleman opposite who has the scholarship and the time do some homework and tell us the facts?
We are not told the facts about any aspect of our defence policy. If one speaks a little bluntly, and with a little enthusiasm, one is charged with name-calling. But this happens only when we do it. I noticed with interest last week that the Secretary of State for Air—who I regret is not with us—called us unilateralists. Fancy calling my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) a unilateralist! That was a calculated smear; a calculated distortion. But that was not enough. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation—fancy a Minister in the Ministry of Aviation talking like this in view of the way it conducts its affairs—while at Worcester said that my right hon. Friend's policy was shifty. And if that is not enough, in The Times on Saturday morning I saw a report that at a Conservative

Party conference our policy was described as cowardly.

The Temporary Chairman (Commander Donaldson): Order. The Committee respects the experience of the hon. Member, but I hope that he will relate what he is saying to Vote 7, and will not go too wide in the debate.

Mr. Wigg: What I am saying is that this is the kind of game that is played by Members opposite. They change the rules. It is football when they want it and cricket when they want it. They can call us unilateralists, shifty, and cowardly, but we are not supposed to say anything. I do not play it that way. I go by the principle that anything that is bunged at me will in due course he returned with compound interest, and that is what I have been doing.
I have been trying to expose—and I am using this opportunity to do it again—the vacillation and the cowardice of right hon. Gentlemen opposite who dare not tell their back benchers and the country the truth about the expenditure of £2,000 million. Because they dare not, they treat not only this assembly but the country as if they were children. The Government have produced the Estimates in this form, and I protest about it. I have been protesting for the last ten days. I protested during the debate on these Estimates a year ago, and I protest again tonight, because a price has to be paid. The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) smiles. There is an intellectual giant. The hon. Gentleman holds a point of view about the Navy, and I respect him for it. He may be right and I may be wrong. I freely confess that, but by chance I might be right and he might be wrong. He never considers that. If he is right, we shall get three old aircraft carriers and 120 Phantoms. The Army will have no cover and no transport.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: During the last few days I have listened with great patience to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I am always glad to hear his views, but the more briefly he puts them the more easily I am convinced.

Mr. Wigg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be convinced, and I am sure that that is meant as a jibe.


It is the kind of childish remark which one can expect when one remembers that the hon. Gentleman spends very little time in this Chamber. During most of our debates last week there was hardly anyone in the Chamber. Therefore, I do not apologise for taking every opportunity I can—and I am doing it again—to spell out exactly the same thing. It is only by constant repetition that one can hope to make any impression. The hon. Member for Dorset, West and the school of thought that he represents have got away with it at the expense of this Vote.
I will spell it out again if he wants me to. Let hon. Members examine the statements that have been made about the P1154 and the HS681, and the decisions which have not yet been made about the helicopter. Over the past year decisions have been delayed, or decisions have been made and subsequently amended, in order to meet the political convenience of the Government. The question of the helicopter is the latest example of what I am saying. There was nothing in the Estimates. Then a statement was made by the Minister of Defence in such a form that the House had to take it on the nod. He promised to make a decision about the helicopter in the following week. Last week a Question was put to the Minister of Aviation. What happened? Did he announce a decision? No—there was no decision. And he will not say whether he will take a decision this week. Why? Because the battle that has gone on behind the scenes, between the vested interests and the Army, which is desperate for a helicopter, must await the political convenience of hon. Members opposite.
This is no way to carry out a defence policy, or to treat our people. The Government should not give them so little information that it is impossible, on the basis of the Estimates, to make up their minds. The Americans, on the other hand, with an expenditure many times bigger than ours, go to endless trouble, not only in terms of the form of the information originally given but also in that Ministers and civil servants give evidence before a committee, so that steps can be taken to make sure that not only the policy but the finance is right.
I do not know the remedy, but I have one advantage over the hon. Member for Dorset, West. At least I have tried to find one. I have put down on the Order Paper an Amendment to the Standing Orders to give the Estimates Committee powers, which it does not have at present, to look into policy, so that we shall be able to have a committee on defence expenditure. If we cannot have it in the House, we ought to be able to have it in Committee upstairs. What answer has been given to my arguments in this respect? We have had the asinine answer that it would involve questions of security. The Americans can do it, with much more to hide than we have. If they can submit their policies to a public examination, with due regard to security, surely we can do the same.
There is no real alternative to a detailed examination of these Service Estimates by a committee which has power to take evidence on oath, to call for witnesses and to examine not only the method by which money is spent but also the policy involved. The only alternative is to have policies about which we are not very sure, in connection with which information is not made available, so that at the end of the day we wake up when it is too late, to find that fundamental errors have been made. It is against that possibility that I once again raise my voice in protest.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Earlier on, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) made it clear that he did not have much time for the Royal Navy. I am sure that the Air Council will be gratified at having at least his support. I support the Royal Air Force in its strategic rôle, and I also support Coastal Command, which is a very important Command. The hon. Member referred to helicopters. I imagine that those required by the Army would be on the Army Vote. I do not think that they would be the responsibility of my hon. Friend. Nevertheless, I agree that a decision aught to be made fairly soon.
In the defence debate a fortnight ago, I asked the Minister of Defence some questions about delivery. I recognise that over the last 19 years during which time the hon. Member for Dudley and myself have been in this House we have not been told a great deal about


defence. But two wrongs do not make a right, and if the hon. Member will cast his mind back to the time when he was Parliamentary private secretary to the then Minister of State for War, he will recall that we were told precious little in those days and I did not hear the hon. Gentleman protest.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member says that he did not hear me protest. He should go back to the time of the first debates on the Service Estimates after the Labour Government came into office. I do not think the hon. Gentleman was a Member of this House at that time, but his hon. Friends and myself in debate after debate on the Service Estimates kept the Government up all night. Let him check that in
HANSARD.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Whether that is so or not, it is a long time ago, nearly 20 years, and not very much happened when a Government of the hon. Member's party were in office.

Mr. Wigg: Nor has it since the Government of the hon. Member's party has been in office.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The position has improved to some extent——

Mr. Wigg: No.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman.
I have no doubt that the security people tell Ministers, "You must not say anything about this or that", and I do not expect a reply to the questions which I propose to put to the Minister. But we have voted the expenditure of a great deal of money on the safety of this country. It runs into many millions and covers the plans for several years ahead. I am not asking to be told how many aircraft have been ordered, although, as I said in the defence debate, one could probably read it in the American Newsweek or in Izvestia. But we require to be told when the equipment will be delivered. We must have that information in order to be able to estimate whether this country can be defended. The Hunters are getting a bit "old in the tooth". The P1154 will take several years to replace them. No one is blaming the Minister

except for the fact that the contract could have been placed two years ago. But I should like to know when the P1154 will begin to fly. There is also the HS681 to replace the Hastings, an aircraft which has done great service for Transport Command despite a limited range.
There is also the question of the Belfast. I notice that none of my hon. Friends who represent Ulster constituencies is in the Chamber at the present moment. The first Belfast has flown, but how long will it take to develop this aircraft? We badly need a strategic freighter. If anything goes wrong at Cyprus or Aden we shall desperately need an aircraft which could fly troops and materials for longer distances. May we be told when Short Bros. and Harland estimate that this equipment can be delivered? The Avro 748 was ordered about two years ago—I believe very much against the advice of the Air Council, which wanted the Handley Page Herald. But it had to take the Avro 748. When will that aircraft come into squadron use?
We are entitled to be given a minimum amount of information on delivery dates. I will let the Minister off telling us about the cost or how many aircraft are to be supplied—though it would not he difficult to find out that information if one set one's mind to it. But we are entitled to have information about delivery dates in order to judge whether the money has been spent correctly and the country can be defended. I must, through my hon. Friend, protest to the Minister of Defence because he did not reply to my speech in the defence debate——

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman did not reply to anybody.

Sir A. V. Harvey: —and I must ask that we have more information.

Mr. Mulley: We all agree that this is a most important and very expensive Vote involving practically half the cost of the provision for the Air Force. I wish to reinforce the eloquent plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for more information about these matters. I defy anyone to read Vote 7 and obtain from it any idea of the amount of money for particular projects or how the figures are worked out. The


only impression which one gets from looking at the Vote is that, somehow or other, £254 million is to be spent and that, in some imprecise way, £20 million is to come back, which represents a net charge on the Vote of £234 million. As the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) said, we cannot go on not knowing delivery dates. I would go further than him and say that I see no reason why we cannot be told, when an order is placed, the number of planes which have been ordered. For some months the Government have told us that they cannot say how many Belfasts are on order and then we suddenly find the item appearing in a Government White Paper or in a chart at the back of the book.
8.45 p.m.
In the defence debate the Minister resisted questions about how many Phantom planes he was intending to order. Yet in the course of his speech he volunteered to tell us how many helicopters he would order, although he had not made up his mind which one it would be. I cannot see any difference from the point of view of security in knowing how many Phantoms are on order and how many helicopters are on order. There should be a policy so that the number of planes concerned, or at least their cost, was released for public information. Even if we were told the cost we should not know the precise number. If the Secretary of Defence in the United States can tell Congress by having his speech printed as a public paper—and obviously there is no restriction on the information contained in it—not only the numbers but the cost of a great number of the defence projects of the United States, either he is letting the alliance down by giving away valuable information, or the Government here are hiding behind the cloak of security from the complaints and criticisms which I am sure would come from both sides of the Committee if the truth were made known.
I elicited from the Secretary of State for Air in column 601 of HANSARD for 27th February that the only sum this year to be spent on new aircraft was £64 million, which gives a quite different impression from the total of £234 million given in this vote. The first thing that I should like to know from the Under-Secretary of State is this:

if only £64 million out of £234 million is to be spent on new aircraft, what is the rest of the money to be spent on?
Arising from the same Question, I obtained the information that 17 per cent. of the £64 million—roughly £11 million—is to be spent on Bomber Command. What will Bomber Command get this year for the £11 million? Will it all go on Blue Steel, or does it include additional V-bombers—Victor Hs or Vulcan IIs—still to be delivered? Surprisingly, the biggest figure in the new item is 35 per cent. of the £64 million, namely, about £22 million, going to Fighter Command. I should have thought that this rated much lower priority than, for example, Transport Command. I was told in this Answer that only 5 per cent. of the £64 million, namely, £3¼ million, was being spent on new transport aircraft. A little over 1½ per cert. of the total expenditure on the aircraft and stores is going on new aircraft for Transport Command, although great speeches have been made, rightly, from both sides about the need to develop our mobility.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield stressed the need for strategic freighters, such as the Belfast. This year there is a figure of only £3¼ million in this connection. The conclusion which I draw from what I have been able to discover about the provisions in the Estimates and the fact that only £64 million is going to Transport Command—43 per cent. of the £64 million is unaccounted for; that is presumably for overseas commands, and so on—is that we shall have practically no new aircraft in the Air Force in 1964–65. If I am wrong about that, I should be glad to know from the Under-Secretary what aircraft are expected to be delivered.
I reinforce the plea made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield about delivery dates of other items in the programme. The contrast between the kind of information we get—and, I suspect, the quantity of aircraft the R.A.F. will actually get next year—and the numbers and types of plane in development is very marked. I suspect that there is nothing in this Vote for the P1154, the TSR2, the Belfast, the Avro 748 or the Hawker Siddeley 681, five aircraft which occupied ail the discussion on the White Paper and in the defence debate. I


challenge the Under-Secretary to say whether for any of these aircraft any cost is set out in this Vote.
I know there is a problem in so far as there is an extremely complicated cross accounting system between the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Aviation. The surprising thing is that we get any military aircraft at all when we consider how the Government have set up the coming and going between the Royal Air Force, which should know about the aircraft—as the hon. Member for Macclesfield said, it usually gets a different plane from the one it wants—and the Ministry of Aviation, with the Treasury, I suspect, coming in frequently and not being very helpful. It is a miracle that with all these controls we get any aircraft at all. Nevertheless, despite all this enormous expensive apparatus which has been set up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley mentioned in the case of Ferranti and a number of others, there is vast over-expenditure.
If we are to have meaningful debates on defence, we must know what proportion of the £2,000 million defence bill is being spent on new equipment. If we cannot have information about the exact types and quantity of new aircraft which have been, or will be, bought, we should at least be enabled to distinguish new aircraft from replacement and spares. If the Royal Air Force acquires an aircraft it breaks down the cost under different headings, airframes, engines, armament and electronic equipment. We should know if we buy 10 Belfasts what the cost will be to bring them into service. We do not want to know the separated cost of the airframe, the engine, electronic equipment and the rest, but we should be given a clear picture.
I hope that, rather belatedly, the Under-Secretary can give us much more information than we have been given so far. However hard working one might be, it would be difficult to produce the information from the Votes before us. At the very minimum we should insist on answers to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley and the hon. Member for Macclesfield. We should have the kind of information which the Committee must have before

authorising the expenditure of £234 million.

Mr. F. Taylor: I find myself bemused by the types of aircraft in service and in prospect, bewildered by the descriptive particulars given to them and rather staggered by the cost. I wonder if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can give us a sort of stock-taking, such as a commercial firm produces at the end of the year, showing the different numbers and types of aircraft and their cost. I would prefer my hon. Friend to go beyond that and to give the residual value so that we could know what we have, but that may not be available to produce off the cuff. Some figures of the cost would help a lot.

Sir H. Harrison: I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the Vote deals with stores as well as with aircraft. The point to which I draw my hon. Friend's attention is the Vote of £3,100,000 under Subhead G dealing with clothing, a reduction from £4 million in the year before. Will this clothing be used in the forthcoming year or will it all go into store? Why is there a reduction from the previous year? There is a feeling that not sufficient care is taken in the quantity of clothing ordered for our Services and that later much of it is called surplus and is sold at very low prices because it has been held for too long in store.
Under appropriations in aid there are receipts relating to clothing of £1,400,000, which is the same as last year. The two added together amount to almost the sum which we are paying. Is this clothing which has been used or was it bought some years ago and is it now being sold at a very low price? This kind of thing alarms the public unless they know that there is proper care and attention in buying this type of stores.

Mr. Ridsdale: The hon. Members for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) once again referred to the statement made to the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives in January by Mr. McNamara, and they compared it unfavourably with our own Statement on Defence. To a degree comparisons are odious, particularly when the constitutional backgrounds of our two countries are quite dissimilar.
The hon. Member for Dudley referred to the American expenditure of 50,000 million dollars and to the £234 million of our Vote 7. If we were seeking approval for an estimate of 50,000 million dollars or some £20 billion on Vote 7, we might consider that the release of more detailed information was in our national interest. Even so, the American statements which the hon. Member commended so much are not all-embracing. However much he may have searched through the American statement, I am sure that the hon. Member has not been able to find any information about the Mach 3 aircraft which the Americans flew in the past week.

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Member has completely missed the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and I tried to impress on him. I will take it very slowly. If the argument for not giving the information which we seek is a security argument, then, whether he gives a complete survey or not, the Secretary of Defence of the United States is guilty of a breach of security of the alliance, because he is prepared in the modification of the B52 to state how much it costs, whereas we apparently may not be told how much it will cost to modify the V-bomber force for the same purpose. Mr. McNamara also gave numbers of aircraft and their cost. It is true that he probably did not give a complete picture in his public testimony because, in addition to the printed and published information, there is much private briefing which is not published. We know the constitutional difficulties which account for that.
Secondly, the hon. Member just made a most extraordinary point. He said that because we are spending only a little, the Government cannot possibly tell the Committee how they are spending it. This must be a classic remark for any Minister coming to the Committee for Supply. He says, "We are not being given enough money, so we cannot tell you how we are spending it. If we were spending fifty times as much, we should have to tell the Committee a little more." This is quite unacceptable from a Minister of the Crown who is asking the Committee for Supply. If he intends to refuse information without backing his refusal by good security reasons, he is setting a precedent for the future

relations between the Committee and Ministers on the question.

Mr. Ridsdale: I hope in the course of my reply to be able to give more detailed explanations, but the precedent which we have been following in these Votes is one which we have followed in the Committee for many years and which was followed by the Labour Party when in power.
I come to the point that whereas over 20 per cent. of the total Vote from 1959 to 1964 has gone to new aircraft, engines and weapons, it is proposed to spend only 13 per cent. for this purpose next year. The main reason for the relatively high expenditure over the past five years was the heavy capital expenditure on the V-bomber force which, as we have explained so many times, has practically ended. All we are left with next year on Bomber Command is the expenditure on the last Few V-bombers and the running costs of the V-bombers.
Secondly, the statements about new aircraft which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence made in the defence debate do not affect the Air Votes during next year. The expenditure on such aircraft as HS 681 and P1154 will be only on the development stage and will therefore be a charge on the Ministry of Aviation Vote.
9.0 p.m.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Dudley about seeing that we get value for money, I am sure that there is nobody, on either side of the Committee, who is concerned with the Estimates who is not anxious that we get value for money in what we are spending. Before answering the hon. Member's specific points, I must explain the differerce in the allocation between the Ministry of Aviation Vote and the Air Ministry Vote and the division of responsibility between the Ministry of Aviation and the Air Ministry for the financing of aircraft and aircraft equipment.
Financial responsibility for the development of aircraft, guided weapons and electronics rests with the Ministry of Aviation, and the cost of this development is borne on the main Vote of that Department. The Ministry of Aviation is also responsible for procuring the production quantities of this


equipment which the Air Ministry requires, but in this case it acts as agent for the Air Ministry and is responsible for letting contracts and making payments to manufacturers, including all progress payments. The Air Ministry, in return, repays the Ministry of Aviation, but as a general principle it does so only when the manufacture of the equipment has been completed and it has been delivered to the Royal Air Force.
The Ministry of Aviation payments to the manufacturers and the receipts from the Air Ministry are carried on a Ministry of Aviation Vote. Over a period of years this Vote should be approximately in balance, but in any one year the payments to manufacturers are not necessarily in respect of the same equipment as the receipts from the Air Ministry.
The Ministry of Aviation main Vote for 1964–65 contains appropriate provision for aircraft under development, including the P1154 and the HS681, in respect of which the Minister of Defence has announced the decision to go ahead with development. The Purchasing (Repayment) Services Vote contains provision for payments to manufacturers for those aircraft which are already under construction but which have not yet been delivered, for instance, the VC10 and the Belfast. Vote 7, as I have explained, contains provision for aircraft to be delivered to the Royal Air Force in 1964–65. This includes Vulcans and Lightning 3s, and in this year the aircraft destined for Transport Command are confined to some Beagles and HS748s. Most of the Air Ministry's payments to the Ministry of Aviation are made under what are called bulk settlements. As is explained in Appendix VII on page 172 of the Defence Estimates, a provisional settlement is made towards the end of each financial year, and any adjustment is made in the following financial year when the value of actual deliveries during the year is known. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Dudley that we must insist on all the safeguards possible in a free society for proper economy in the buying of our aircraft and stores.
The hon. Member referred to the Bloodhound contract and asked for an

assurance that if an overpayment or a similar irregularity were discovered no further contract would be placed until the matter was cleared up. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation, who will, I have no doubt, consider what steps are necessary in the light of the investigation at present being conducted by Sir John Lang.

Mr. Wigg: This is not so much a matter for the Minister of Aviation. I have not put this question specifically in relation to the present investigation. I believe there are other cases. What I want is a statement on behalf of the Government that in any future case where there is an over-payment, refunds can be made to the public and no further contract placed until the matter is cleared up. Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to ask his right hon. Friend, or the Prime Minister perhaps, to make an early statement to the House on the policy enshrined in this matter?

Mr. Ridsdale: I am sure that what the hon. Member for Dudley has said will be noted by my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member also suggested that the Royal Air Force has lost out to the Navy over the Phantom. Let me say at once that nothing is further from the truth. The fact is that both Services will get the aircraft they need. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence made clear in the defence debate, every effort was made to develop a common aircraft based on the P1154.

Mr. Ross: There is nothing in the Estimates about that.

Mr. Ridsdale: Unfortunately, for technical reasons, this was not possible, despite the great efforts that were made to develop such an aircraft.
I should like to pay tribute to the Air and Naval Staffs who have worked extremely closely together, in great harmony, in carrying out the very detailed examinations into this problem. As I have said, it was technically not practicable to marry the two requirements. Indeed, the Royal Air Force requires an aircraft to replace the Hunter in the ground attack reconnaissance rôle, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The basic requirement was written around the need to support the Army in the field. The


main characteristics required are that the aircraft should be capable of V./S.T.O.L., that it should have a rough field performance, together with the ability to operate away from main bases for prolonged periods, and be able to carry weapons necessary to support the Army. In addition, it should have some capability as a day fighter. The Royal Navy, on the other hand, needs an all-weather fighter primarily for the defence of the Fleet. To meet these two different requirements against the background of the conditions that must be expected in the 'seventies needs two different types of aircraft—

Mr. Ross: I do not want to be naughty, but can the hon. Gentleman tell me where the 'seventies and these aircraft are mentioned in the Estimates?

Mr. Ridsdale: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not wish me to continue to reply to the points raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. As the hon. Member for Dudley was not ruled out of order, I felt it only my duty to try to reply to his questions.
There is, therefore, no question of the Royal Air Force not getting what it needs, or of letting the Army down. Indeed, the contrary is the case. V./S.T.O.L. was not only developed in this country, but is one of the most radical changes in aviation since man first began to fly. I am sure that these points are an answer to some of the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Dudley.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park and other hon. Members asked me to give more details of aircraft numbers and costs. I have been speaking generally in reply to some of the arguments on Vote 7, but I would underline once again that Vote 7 contains no provision for the TSR2 the P1154, the Hawker-Siddeley 681 or the VC10. Expenditure on these programmes will fall next year on the Ministry of Aviation Votes. Air Votes meet the cost only when the aircraft are delivered to the Royal Air Force.
Paragraphs 169 and 170 of the Statement on Defence list the main aircraft for which provision is made on Vote 7. There are continuing deliveries of the Vulcan Mark 2, the Wessex Mark 2, the Jet Provost and the Gnat, and also first deliveries of the Lightning Mark 3, the HS748 and the Beagle 206—

Sir A. V. Harvey: Listening to my hon. Friend, it seems to me that he is disclaiming responsibility for these new types that are coming along and will not tell us about them because they are not included in this year's figures, but that is not what happens in planning a business or a Service Department. My hon. Friend must have agreed, or his right hon. Friend must have agreed, that the aircraft will be ordered, and we are surely entitled to know when they will be delivered. I must ask my hon. Friend to take us more into his confidence in this matter and not seek just to brush us off.

Mr. Ridsdale: I thank my hon. Friend for that reminder of the points he made, and I hope to come to them very shortly. He asked when many of our new aircraft will be delivered. I would say that the question of delivery dates is a difficult one. In certain cases it would be of interest to hon. Members, and it would be of undesirable interest outside as well to certain other countries. I will go no further than to say that we expect delivery of the P1154 and the HS681 by the end of the 'sixties—or around the turn of the decade. The HS748 will be in service next year, I believe that the Belfast will be in service in the following year, and that the VC10 will be about a year later.

Mr. Wigg: When are we to get the Phantom?

Mr. Ridsdale: I think that the hon. Member will have to wait for the Navy Vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum not exceeding £234,250,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of aircraft and stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

Vote 9. Miscellaneous Effective Services

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £350,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services including certain grants in aid and a subscription to the World Meteorological Organisation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

9.15 p.m.

Sir H. Harrison: There are a few questions I should like to put to my hon. Friend regarding Subhead K, the administration of sovereign base areas


in Cyprus, because in the company of other hon. Members I paid a visit to Cyprus, where we were the guests of the R.A.F., about six months ago. We were extremely impressed with the general administration of the Royal Air Force on the island. In these troubled times we have not heard very much about the commander-in-chief there, Air Chief Marshal Barnett, although some of the greatest successes of our joint forces in Cyprus have been due to his wisdom and cool guidance.
I wonder, since a large number of British troops have gone to the area, whether the administration there has been able to cope with the situation effectively? I raise this matter on this Vote because when we were there we found that the main messing halls were being run by the R.A.F. and that about 1,000 men were being fed in each half. The food was of a very high quality and the R.A.F. was also catering for many of the sub-units of the Army. This shows a good degree of integration between the two Services. I imagine, too, that these messes have been responsible for getting food to armed detachments on patrol in different parts of Cyprus. If so, has the administration been able to perform this task effectively, although I am sure that it has?
I should also like to know whether R.A.F. Transport Command, to which all hon. Members pay the highest tribute, particularly from the safety point of view, is still able to operate the airfield at Nicosia. This is a particularly poignant question in these difficult times.
Under Subhead A, "Telecommunications and Postage", there appears to be an increase on the postage side. Can my hon. Friend say whether the postal arrangements to Libya have been improved? A small increase is shown for telecommunications. Can he comment on that aspect?

Mr. William Yates (The Wrekin): I was interested to hear the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) about Cyprus, the work in the sovereign bases and the task being performed by the R.A.F. there. I hope that the Under-Secretary will make it clear that, besides Army units doing security work, when I visited Cyprus in early January I found R.A.F. units under the command of the Army

taking part in the security measures with the same effect and loyalty as members of the Army. This point should be remembered when we are discussing this Vote.

Mr. F. Taylor: There are a number of increases in this Vote. I appreciate the danger of referring to this, because if there are increases hon. Members opposite—all six of them—are likely to rise up and say that they are due to inept estimating. If the figure has gone down, no doubt they will say that it is due to lack of decison, whilst if it remains as it is, they will say that there is stagnation. Nevertheless, there are a few increases.
I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to let us know the reason for the increase in publicity. Is it due to recruiting or to some other reason? Can he let us know the reason for the increase in compensation, the reason for which is not easy to see? Why is there an increase in the fees to civilian doctors? Are there more of them or does each of them receive more? The figure for training expenses could cover a multitude of sins. May we have some information also about how this is made up?

Mr. Mulley: I am glad that the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. F. Taylor) has raised the question that we need more information, although his reference to the duty of the Opposition was both cheap and inept. If he had troubled to look at the recruiting figures, he would not have needed to ask whether the increase for publicity and recruiting services was due to the need to increase the number of recruits. I understand from what we have been told by the Secretary of State and by the Under-Secretary that last year and this year the problem of recruiting is not be as acute as it may be in the future. It is, therefore, surprising that the publicity and recruiting services dealt with by the Air Ministry show an increase, although the £8,000 is probably not a large sum.
I notice also that the sum given to the Central Office of Information as agent for the Air Ministry has increased substantially during the period in question. Since the Estimates Committee reported some years ago that the Royal Air Force did an excellent job with


its own poster and display work, I have often wondered why so much of the work was given to the Central Office of Information, because the evidence given to the Estimates Committee was conclusively that the Royal Air Force did it better and more cheaply than the C.O.I. That was several years ago. I do not know whether it is still the case. Certainly, we would like to know why the Air Force, which is without a serious recruiting problem in comparison with, say, the Army, still manages to get through a large sum of money in this general direction.
It seems to me to be totally unsatisfactory to include in the same Subhead—C—fees to civilian doctors, dentists, chaplains, etc., and the payment made by the Air Ministry for medical and meteorological research, which is a quite different category to payments to civilian doctors because, presumably, Service doctors were not available. We should be given a breakdown. Since, presumably, medical research is a matter for the Ministry of Health and the Lord President's office, what kind of medical research does the Air Ministry consider it necessary to subscribe to? It is a wholly commendable practice, but it would be a good thing to tell us of the sums spent in research and to which universities the payments are made, so that we can give them credit.
There are two other items on which I should like more information. Everyone will have seen the item concerning the Royal Air Force Museum and the grant-in-aid in that connection, which is also one of the items on the Supplementary Estimate to be considered later. What is involved in the Museum and what purpose is expected to be fulfilled? If the Under-Secretary has time, will he also say why the subscription to the World Meteorological Organisation has been much increased and what that organisation has been doing? Support of such organisations is excellent, but it would be helpful to have a little further information.
Under appropriations in aid, almost a 50 per cent. increase is being found by, no doubt, increasing the rent charged to R.A.F. personnel. Is the much greater item under Z (1) due to increased charges? Has there been a general substantial increase in the sums paid by

personnel for their married quarters? Perhaps examples of this and the reasons for it can also be given to the Committee.

Mr. Ridsdale: I join my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) in paying tribute to Sir Denis Barnett for the way he has looked after all our interests in Cyprus. Sir Denis is but an example of the first-class commanders we are fortunate to have in the R.A.F. today. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) for his tribute to the R.A.F. for the work it is doing in Cyprus under the command of the Army. The first patrols that went into Nicosia on Christmas Eve were R.A.F. patrols.
As far as I know the airfield at Nicosia is still being used by Transport Command. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye also spoke of the sovereign base areas on the Island. The administration of our bases in the last three months has, of course, been carried out in the shadow of the inter-communal crisis. Naturally the crisis has affected some of the normal processes of AngloCypriot consultation but I am glad to assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, in general, there has been no interruption of the work of the sovereign base area administration, which has continued very smoothly.
Law and order have been maintained without incident at the bases and the crisis has not directly affected them. The attendance of local labour has, not unexpectedly, been erratic but most of the absences have been due to inability to travel of to fear of leaving home rather than to deliberate absenteeism.
Both Greek and Turkish Cypriots have continued to work without incident. Relations between the base administration and the Republic of Cyprus and with the local population have in the main continued satisfactorily, although we have been unable to continue the scale of day-to-day contact normally achieved. I am sure that we all hope that the arrangements agreed in New York will enable an enduring political solution to be found.
My hon. and gallant Friend also asked about increased postal charges. A small part of the increase is to cover increased expenditure at home but the bulk is to cover part of the Forces'


postal concession. Mail sent to or from the forces stationed abroad is paid for by the individual at concession rates and the difference between this and the actual cost is paid for by the Services. The amount is worked out by the Post Office. The R.A.F. share in 1964–65 is up because the strength of the Far Eastern Air Force has gone up quite a lot and also because we have agreed to bear the Ministry of Public Building and Works deficit in view of the difficulty of separating it from the rest. I was glad that mention was made of the delivery of mail and newspapers to Libya, for I know that at one time it was slow in reaching some of our forces at E1 Adem. This has been corrected.
The question of telecommunications was also raised. The provision of £5,125,000 represents a slight increase on last year's figure. This arises from the need to provide certain new facilities—for example, new circuits for the Bloodhound Mark II, which will shortly be coming into service, and new switchboards following on the reorganisation of the Central Defence Organisation. Much of this extra cost has been met by an intensive economy campaign, but, despite this, some increase in the subhead was inevitable.
9.30 p.m.
The increase of £8,000 on publicity mainly represents higher spending on recruiting exhibitions because, although there is no short-term need for recruiting, there is still a long-term need. Indeed, we shall probably have to intensify some of this spending in the course of the next year. We have this year to provide a stand at the National Radio Show, which takes place every other year. We shall also be spending more on display materials and local advertising for career information centres because of resumed ground trades recruitment. As the Committee knows, the main R.A.F. recruiting publicity expenditure is met by the Central Office of Information, which pays for Press advertising, pamphlets, and so on. This Vote is just for recruiting stands, window displays and advertising for civilian vacancies.
Hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), asked why the amount spent on personal services was so large. It is £375,000, an

increase of £26,000. I do not believe that this is excessive, but perhaps it would help if I explained this Vote. First, there are civilian doctors. We employ civilian doctors where it is uneconomic, because the station is too small, to employ a full-time Service doctor. We also use them a great deal to carry out family examinations before a Service posting overseas. It is usually more convenient for a family to go to its own doctor for a check-up than to go to a Service doctor on the camp, although the family can do so if it wishes. Secondly, we pay for the services of civilian padres, again where the station is so small as not to warrant a full-time Service padre. Also under Vote 9C come such things as grants to the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association for work which the Association does overseas, and legal aid for court martial defendants. All this is invaluable and worthwhile. Indeed, the increase of £26,000 is not so large.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Park raised the question of a Royal Air Force Museum. For some years the Air Council has been concerned about the fact that, apart from aircraft, there has been little systematic effort to preserve historic material relating to the Royal Air Force. Moreover, in the absence of such an effort, valuable historic relics of all kinds were being lost. Some months ago, therefore, the Air Force set up a Committee under the chairmanship of Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Dermot Boyle to look into this problem. I am glad to be able to announce that as a result we have decided to establish a Royal Air Force Museum at the Royal Air Force Henlow. A great deal of work has to be done but we hope to have the museum open to the public in 1968, which will coincide with the 50th anniversary of the R.A.F.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the annual contribution to the World Meteorological Organisation. This is a specialised agency of the United Nations, not unlike U.N.E.S.C.O. and the World Health Organisation. Although it has a small permanent headquarters in Geneva, most of its work is done through regional associations and technical commissions manned by members of the national organizations and universities. The


increased grant to this world organisation was proposed in the Fourth Congress at Geneva last year, and the increase in our contribution is the agreed United Kingdom percentage due to the extension of the organisation to provide for more research and development and for translations of data into more languages.
I was asked about accommodation charges. This increase is simply the reflection of the increase in the rental for married quarters reported in last year's White Paper on forces' pay.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £350,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services including certain grants in aid and a subscription to the World Meteorological Organisation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.

AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1963–64

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,900,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, for expenditure, including a grant in aid, beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

Schedule



Sums not exceeding



Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid



£
£


Vote




1. Pay, etc., of the Air Force
Cr. 500,000
800,000


3. Air Ministry
198,500
—


4. Civilians at Out-stations and the Meteorological Office
1,700,000
—


5. Movements
Cr. 500,000
500,000


6. Supplies
300,000
300,000


7. Aircraft and Stores
—
3,000,000


8. Lands and Works
700,000
*-700,000


9. Miscellaneous Effective Services
1,500
—


11. Additional Married Quarters
—
*-400,000


Total, Air (Supplementary), 1963–64 £
1,900,000
3,500,000


* Deficit.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES

Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £84,222,000, be granted to Her Majesty, do defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: As we have very little time left to us, I shall keep my remarks as short as I can and confine myself to two points, both under Subhead C, on the pay and National Insurance of ratings and other ranks.
We are told that these figures include the new pay scales recently brought out, and naturally they include the extra numbers which we voted for last Monday under Vote A. Last Monday, my hon. Friend said that in order to meet the new Vote A he would find it necessary to increase the rate of re-engagement of ratings. He referred to this as being at a high rate—so it is—but it is slightly lower than it was last year. Obviously, this process must be reversed, as my hon. Friend said.
What I am wondering is whether in these new pay scales sufficient attention is being paid to persuading men to staying on longer than their normal engagement and in particular whether the increment which they earn after serving for nine years, fourteen and eighteen years is regarded by them as adequate. A petty officer who remains on after nine years gets 3s. 6d. a day extra, which is somewhat less than 10 per cent. of what he is already being paid. I know that my hon. Friend said that various factors which discouraged men from re-engaging were being studied, but I should like him to say whether he is completely satisfied that the new pay arrangements give sufficient emphasis to the extra which men earn by staying on longer. I imagine that he is satisfied or he would not have agreed to the new pay scales, but I should also like his assurance that this is one of the points which will be kept very much before him and altered if necessary.
That brings me to my second point. It is possible that he may not need all


this money for which he is asking for paying ratings. The Vote includes the new pay scales. It also includes the extra 3,000 men under Subhead A. We do not know whether my hon. Friend will get them. We hope that he will, and last week he said something about how he hopes to achieve his target, but to increase the recruiting rate and re-engagement, even for the Royal Navy, by a sufficient number to bring him up to the figure in Subhead A is quite an undertaking, as I think my hon. Friend recognises.
This point was made last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). If my hon. Friend cannot get the extra men to bring his Subhead A up to 103,000 by extra enlistment in the Royal Navy, I would have no objection to his switching some of the money in Subhead C from the Royal Navy to the Royal Marines. I do not know whether permission would be necessary for that to be done, but if my hon. Friend could increase the strength of the Royal Marines by another 500 which he could not get for the Royal Navy without over-spending the amount that we are voting, I do not believe that anyone would object, and I would welcome it very much.

Commander Anthony Courtney: I wish to raise one short point on Subhead B(3) and Subhead D(3) concerning overseas allowances. The increase of £4 million in overseas allowances is a direct reflection of the increasing involvement of the Royal Navy east of Suez, and this is likely to increase in future years, perhaps remarkably. As we are committed to the security of the Federation of Malaysia, surely it would be only right in future years to see under Appropriations in Aid, Subhead Z, a contribution from the Malaysian Government to ease the burden of Her Majesty's Government? I ask my hon. Friend to bring that to the attention of his right hon. Friend in case something can be done about it in future years.

Miss Joan Vickers: I hope that my hon. Friend will tell the Committee why the sum being provided for the Queen

Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service is being decreased, while the sum being provided for the Women's Royal Naval Service is being increased from £46,000 to £54,000. Are there to be fewer members of the senior nursing service? This service is doing excellent work, and I hope that these Estimates do not mean that there is to be a decrease in the number of officers. How is the pay of these officers related to civilian pay? Is their pay equal to that of their civilian counterparts or do they receive less? If it is the latter, is that why the Vote is being decreased?
My other point concerns education allowances. I see that for officers the figure is to be reduced from £510,000 to £495,000, whereas for ratings the figure is to remain unaltered. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me why this reduction is being made.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: It is a great pity that, once again, we are discussing these Navy Votes in a great rush. This is the third year in succession that the Navy has not been first. I understand that these matters are the choice of the Opposition. I hope that they will show a greater interest in the Navy next year, and put it first in the list.

Mr. E. G. Willis: These matters go in rotation. There is no desire not to discuss the Navy.

Mr. Digby: That is what I understood, but when I made inquiries before the order of business was decided upon, was given to understand that in this instance the rotation has been departed from. I hope that the party opposite, which will be in opposition for a long time, will continue this rotation.
It is pleasant to be discussing an increase of 3,000 men in Vote A, for a change. I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) in wishing that we could have had more than an increase of 100 in the Royal Marines, and I hope that that will be possible in ensuing years. I am sure that there are tasks which the Marines could carry out which are now being performed by our much-pressed Army.
I should like to say a word about Subhead Z. I notice that under Item


(1), "Receipts in respect of personnel lent to other Governments", the Estimate is almost doubled. That must mean that there has been an increase in the number of officers that we are lending. I hope that we can be told a little more about this. When I have raised questions of the officer-rating ratio in the past, the requirements of other navies, and of N.A.T.O. and other alliances are always pleaded in aid. But there always seems to be a tendency for the ratio of officers to increase. I hope that the situation will be watched.
In the recent mutinies in East Africa many British Army personnel were in the affected areas. On reflection, many of us thought that that was a bad thing. We might have been landed in rather deeper than was the case. I hope that great thought will be given to the question of lending naval officers and ratings to other Governments. There are occasions when it is not a blessing, and it could be an embarrassment.

Commander J. S. Kerans: should like to know what will happen to the Naval Intelligence Division when it moves to the new set-up. Only today I read in The Times that officers are being appointed to D.N.I. as far ahead as July and August. Does this mean that the title of Director of Naval Intelligence is being retained? Is not there a case for a retention of the staff, both civilian and naval, of the Director of Naval Intelligence? How will this come about? Will they all move lock, stock and barrel into the new set-up?
Who will be responsible for the naval attachés in the new set-up? Will they all come under the Minister of Defence, or under the Minister of Defence (Navy)? In certain countries naval attaches are responsible to the Air Force or the Army. Who will be responsible for security in the Royal Navy? Will that go lock, stock and barrel into the new defence set-up, or will it be a matter for the Navy?
By way of a Question I asked my right hon. Friend if he could tell me the disposition of the Reserve Fleet, and the number of personnel involved. I have not my glasses with me, and I cannot read very well. I do not know about the officers, but I understand that

there are 1,867 ratings and 28 civilians. Surely we should be allowed to know where the Reserve Fleet is. In this modern age at can hardly be a security risk. During the debate on the Navy Estimates I was galled to discover that the Leader of the Opposition was well aware of the disposition of the ships of the Royal Navy. Why should not this information be placed in the Library of the House of Commons and so he made available to hon. Members?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. John Hay): I feel rather like a cricketer who is being bowled at by very fast bowlers. I have a very short time in which to reply to the debate but I will do my best. My hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) drew attention to the fact that from the Vote it appears that we are increasing the pay of the men. He wondered whether we had taken into account the possibilities of increasing the re-engagement rate which were open to us when we calculated the additional sums which we should provide. His particular interest was whether we had done enough to increase the increments paid to men willing to re-engage and whether we had given sufficient emphasis to that. I must tell my hon. Friend—I expect he knows—that these questions of the adjustment of pay scales apply to all the Services, and although, naturally, we bargain with each other and the Treasury, the eventual outcome represents a good deal of compromise all round. I think it will suffice if I say we are satisfied that the increments ii is proposed to pay to men who re-engage will provide the additional impetus that we need.
I do not pretend that it is merely by increasing increments that we shall solve the re-engagement problem. As I said during the debate on the Navy Estimates last week a number of factors come into play, not least the question of settled home life and the "turbulence", as we call it which affects Service men during their careers. This has a substantial disincentive effect. I assure the Committee, and my hon. Friend, that we pay a good deal of attention to this matter. My hon. Friend asked whether we would get the 103,000 Vote A strength for which we ask. I can only say that we sincerely hope we shall. We shall do all we possibly can.
The position regarding Royal Marine recruiting is, as the Committee will have noticed, that we are increasing the target—from 750 in 1963–64 to 800 for 1964–65. This is to meet requirements. I am not saying that we could not recruit more Marines if we wished. Recruiting has been extremely buoyant in recent years. But at the moment we are not asking for more than that number.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman referred—to my surprise—to "bargaining" between the three Services and the Treasury and "compromise" in reaching these rates of pay. Is he certain that he was not going too far? Is not there machinery which relates these things? I thought that the hon. Gentleman gave a rather bad impression.

Mr. Hay: I am sorry if I gave a bad impression, but I do not think that I did. If one looks at my remarks in the OFFICIAL REPORT I think that the correct impression will appear. It is a matter of common knowledge that with three individual Services with different requirements in respect of the same kind of men, a good deal of bargaining has to go on and adjustments have to be made to ensure that the rates are not out of relationship to similar rates in other Services. This is a natural process which goes on under all Governments and there is nothing disreputable or dishonourable about it.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) asked about overseas allowances and pointed out that we are asking Parliament for rather more this year and that this is an indication of the increased numbers which we are carrying in the Fleet East of Suez. He suggested that we might seek a contribution from other countries, particularly Malaysia which he mentioned, in respect of the work which we carry out for them. My hon. and gallant Friend will not expect me to give a full answer in the short time remaining to me. We are never prepared to forgo any satisfactory source of revenue, but I do not know whether, in the present circumstances, that suggestion is one which we should want to pursue.

Captain John Litchfield: On a point of order. With apologies to

my hon. Friend the Civil Lord, may I ask whether it will be in order to extend this discussion after ten o'clock in view of the fact that the Navy has been largely talked out by the Air Force and the Army, that we still have another £80 million odd to vote on and that in recent days naval affairs in this House and outside have been of particular interest?

The Chairman: I am afraid that I have no power to extend the time for this debate.

Mr. Hay: I have every sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield). We had a good deal of discussion about the Navy last week, but there are a great many points still unresolved about which I should have liked the chance to say a few words; and we regret the absence of certain distinguished figures from the benches opposite tonight.
I turn to the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) about Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service. She drew attention to the fact that, although we are asking for a lower sum in respect of officers' pay on Vote 1 this year than last, nevertheless, the numbers to be maintained shown on Vote A differ by 20. The explanation simply is that some of the nurses are borne on Vote 5. Vote 5 deals with medical services, education, and civilians employed on fleet services. In fact, the pay of some of the nursing Service is borne on Vote 5. That accounts for the discrepancy. If my hon. Friend looks at page 43, Appendix II, she will see that the total numbers on various services are brought together. Last year, 1963–64, we bore 420 officers on Vote 5 as against 434 this year. We bore 826 ratings last year as against 834 this year. If one looks at the figures for this year given in Vote A one sees 200 appears as against 180 last year. This is perfectly in order. All that has happened is that between last year and this year there has been a readjustment of the numbers borne on Vote 5.

Miss Vickers: It is less than it was two years ago.

Mr. Hay: Not for money. My hon. Friend is wrong. It is difficult to explain the position in a short time. The extra money is in Vote 5. That is the short answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport asked me about the education allowance. The fact that there has been a drop from £510,000 last year to £495,000 this year in respect of officers does not imply any reduction in popularity. It simply means that in 1963–64 we overstated the figure. We then made provision for continuing at the former rate of growth, but as things turned out the numbers taking advantage of the allowance levelled off. That is all I can say at the moment about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) drew attention to receipts in respect of personnel lent to other Governments and asked for details about them. I can only say without further information that this represents the fact that we are lending more people to foreign Governments, and, in particular, to Commonwealth Governments, than in the past, and therefore we expect the sums to be larger.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools asked a number of questions about the Naval Intelligence Division and its future. In future, this division will be borne on the central Vote of the Ministry of Defence,

and the question of naval attachés will similarly be dealt with centrally.
I did not give details of the dispositions of the Fleet to hon. Members opposite in anything but the broadest sense because, naturally, this is a matter of security. The pink list to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred is a highly accurate list which we keep very carefully under lock and key. I should like to have a word with him about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £84,222,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Report of Resolutions to be received Tomorrow.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Licensing Bill [Lords] and or the Television Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EAST MIDLANDS)

10.1 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move,
That the Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely Order, 1964, dated 14th February, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
If the House agrees, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the next Order:
That the Huntingdon and Peterborough Order, 1964, dated 14th February, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Subject to the wish of the House.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: As I understand that we cannot discuss the legislation which has led to these Orders, nor discuss alternatives to the suggestions put forward, is there at the moment any advantage to the House in dealing with the two together?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is for the House to decide; it is purely what the House wishes. If it is not agreed to take them together——

Mr. Reynolds: I do not wish to object, but I give notice that in future I shall insist on Orders of this nature being taken separately.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I take it that the House is agreed that these two Orders should be taken together.

Sir K. Joseph: The purpose of the two Orders we are discussing together is to create two new counties by the amalgamation of the Counties of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely and the Counties of Huntingdonshire and the Soke of Peterborough respectively—all counties of history and character. Looking around the Chamber I see my necessarily silent but watchful hon. Friend the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton), and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge

(Sir H. Kerr). So there are a number of the hon. Members more directly concerned present in the House.
The Local Government Commission for England in its examination of Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, the Isle of Ely and the Soke of Peterborough revealed three main problems which required changes in the local government structure of the area. First there is the internal structure of the Soke of Peterborough. The county lacks balance between the City of Peterborough which has over 80 per cent.64,000—of the population and the rest of the county which had only 14,000 population last year. Having examined and rejected the city's claim to be a county borough because of its small size, the Commission concluded that the Soke must be merged as a whole into a larger unit of administration.
In the County of Cambridge too there is a lack of balance between town and country, not so acute as in Peterborough but still very marked. The City of Cambridge with 96,000 population last year, has about half the population of the county and over two-thirds of the rateable value. The Commission was never in doubt that the city—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge will remember this—was qualified by current criteria to be a county borough. The open question was whether a county solution could be devised to withstand the loss of Cambridge.
This leads to consideration of the third problem, the question of county services. Three of these four counties are among the smallest in England. The Commission thought that these counties, by comparison with larger ones, were too narrowly limited in population and resources. This affects their capacity to provide comprehensive services of first-class quality and makes the provision of developing services an uphill struggle.
This is not just a question of finance but also one of case loads. If the population of an administrative area is small and its resources poor, the number of special cases which arise may not justify the employment of specialist staff or the provision of specialised institutions, particularly on the health and education sides. But the needs of individual people for special facilities or


special treatment, for example in education or in medical care, are just as urgent whether they live in a large area or a small area.
The Commission's conclusion was that after making proper allowance for the advantages of convenience, these three counties were below average in effectiveness, mainly through their limitations in case loads, staffs, institutions and principally in the developing aspects of some of the social services. In their draft proposals the Commission suggested that the City of Cambridge should become a county borough and that the rest of the four counties should be amalgamated into a single new county.
This plan was supported at the Statutory Conference only by the Cities of Cambridge and Peterborough. The opposition, on the other hand, was widespread and deep-rooted. This was not confined to the county councils; it existed in the great majority of the district councils, the voluntary bodies and, I believe, among ordinary men and women. The Commission concluded that the hostility to a single county, the differences between important elements in it and the almost total lack of leadership genuinely and actively in support made the prospect of an effective, healthy and progressive county decidedly uncertain.
All this led the Commission to examine again the second real starter—two north-south counties. The Statutory Conference had demonstrated that three county councils favoured this idea and there was no——

Mr. Reynolds: On a point of order. So far the Minister has been discussing alternative schemes to those contained in the Order which he is presenting to the House. In previous Orders dealing with county boroughs it has not been in order to discuss alternatives to the proposals before the House.

Sir K. Joseph: Further to that point of order. I was not explaining alternative schemes but telling the House the history behind the Commission's final recommendation and the Government's decision.

Mr. Speaker: I have not heard all that the Minister said, because I was not here, but I am bound to say that from

what I heard he seemed to he doing what he said he was doing—and that, I think, is in order.

Mr. Reynolds: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker But so far the Minister has been referring to other schemes which are not included in the Order, whereas I understood that discussion of Orders of this nature was limited to the scheme within the Order. The Minister has so far spent five minutes talking about other schemes which are not in front of us.

Mr. Speaker: The basic principle is that it would not be in order to discuss an alternative method of attaining the objective which the scheme set out to attain. On the other hand, it would be in order to discuss the reasons why this particular scheme has been decided upon. That is the distinction.

Sir K. Joseph: If I may, I will continue to tell the House the history by which the Government reached the decision embodied in the Order. I have explained the draft proposals of the Local Government Commission.
There was no doubt that a county of Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely would be able to provide progressive services for the whole area. Huntingdon and Peterborough, though the smaller of the two, was a developing area with rowing resources whose constituents were willing to unite and able to offer leadership to the new county. Two counties, in the view of the Local Government Commission, would settle down more easily and naturally than the less homogeneous single county which they had originally proposed.
The main disadvantage of the two-county solution is that it does not meet Cambridge City's claim to be a county borough. The balance between city and county in Cambridgeshire, however is improved, and there are benefits for the surrounding area in retaining the city within the county. The two-county solution was therefore in the end, after all these sages, the solution proposed by the Commission. When the proposals were published there were objections, and a local inquiry was held. Cambridge City Council emphasised its fitness for county borough status and pressed for promotion. It criticised the two-county solution because Huntingdon and Peterborough would not be


sufficiently strong in population and resources and suggested that the inclusion of two large boroughs would lead to pressure for further change.
The Isle of Ely County Council, supported by many of its district councils and parishes, made a claim to remain a separate administrative county, arguing that the present county services were efficient and unlikely to be improved by amalgamation. The remaining three county councils, backed in the main by their district councils, supported the Commission and opposed Cambridge City's county borough claim, maintaining that it could not be looked at in isolation and pointing to the strong link between county and city.
There can be no doubt that the present structure of local government in these four counties is unsatisfactory. The Commission's points about the balance between town and country in Cambridge and the Soke of Peterborough are undeniable. On the services of the three smaller counties there is, of course, room for debate, but there can really be little doubt that the trend is for services to become more complex and specialised. For that reason alone, apart from any deficiences which may exist, it is in the general interests of the inhabitants of the whole area for stronger administrative counties to be created. The Government have decided, therefore, to establish two counties as recommended by the Commission.
In content, the two Orders follow one another fairly closely. Article 5 establishes the two new counties and also effects the changes of county, county district and parish boundaries. These changes will take effect from 1st April, 1965. The rest of the Orders contain the many consequential and transitional provisions which are needed. The Articles on electoral matters are likely to be of special interest to hon. Members. Article 7 keeps the existing county councils in office until they hand over their functions to the new authorities on 1st April, 1965. This provision avoids the inconvenience of holding elections in April this year for councils which will continue in being for less than 12 months. It has the support of the county councils concerned. The new county councils will be elected in the autumn of

this year, in time for them to make preparations for the amalgamations.
The next group of Articles deal with the administration of justice. Where no suitable precedent is available, these are based on the Administration of Justice Bill, which is at present before the House. Each of the new counties will have a lord lieutenant, a sheriff, a single court of quarter sessions and a single magistrates' courts committee.
There follow a number of Articles making detailed provision for the transfer of county services to the new councils; that is, education, health and planning and so on. The Orders also contain provision for the transfer of local authority staff and for the protection of their terms and conditions of service on the lines of the London Government Act.
The House might like to know what happens if the Orders are approved and, on the other hand, what happens if they are not approved. First, if they are approved. Local government in the four counties will be settled for the foreseeable future. No local authority will be able to promote a Bill to alter its area or status until 1973. Nor, for that matter, can the Minister introduce further changes under the 1958 Act. Approval of the Orders, therefore, guarantees a period of stable local government in which it is hoped that all the present authorities will pull together to make the new administration a success.
I should now describe, on the other hand, what happens if they are not approved. If the Orders are rejected local government in the four counties will be back in the melting pot. It is clear, in the light of the Local Government Commission's Report, that things cannot remain as they are. All the four counties concerned suffer from structural defects or want of resources. Reorganisation in one form or another is, therefore, inevitable if local government in this area is to continue on an effective and convenient basis.
It is unrealistic to think that those local authorities which have largely failed to reach general agreement in the past will miraculously succeed in doing so in the future. The best that is to be hoped if these Orders are rejected—and it is a gloomy outlook—is that after a further period of discord and instability, which can only weaken the area as a


whole, there will have to be a solution imposed by the Government by means of fresh legislation applying specifically to this whole area—which may command less general support than the present solution, which has the backing of three out of five of the local authorities mainly concerned.
Before concluding, I should like in particular to refer to the City of Cambridge. The Government very much hope that Cambridge City will loyally accept the decision, and throw in its lot fully with its new county, for it could be a grave mistake, indeed, if, instead, it were to cherish hopes that it has only to wait until 1973 before resuming its quest for county borough status. As I reminded the House on a previous occasion, the present criteria for county borough eligibility may well need to be reviewed when this round of reorganisation is completed, particularly in the light of population trends and the need for town expansion.
These Orders, therefore, provide the best available solution to the problems of local government in these four counties, where the principal need is to strengthen county government. The solution embodied in the Orders is the most practical one. County government will be greatly strengthened. The new counties will have a better balance between town and country than the present ones. Their population and financial resources should enable them to provide a full range of services of good quality. They should be able to afford specialist officers, and to run the necessary specialised institutions on a scale that has not been possible in the past. The new counties should gain great strength from the traditions and loyalties that they will inherit from the present counties. This reorganisation has the great merit of attracting the maximum support for any scheme of reorganisation in the four counties.
There is also good reason to hope that the new county of Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely will very soon evoke support and enthusiasm in the Isle of Ely. This is not to overlook for a moment that the county and my hon. Friend its Member have stoutly maintained the county's claim to independence. But the assistance given by the county council with the preparation of the Orders—while I do not wish to hold its co-operation against it—

suggests that if Parliament approves these Orders the Isle of Ely will lend its support in making the new county council successful. I have every hope, too, that Cambridge City will play its proper part in the new county, despite its disappointment that the decision has gone against it.
I should like to thank the members and officers of all the county councils for the great help they have given with these Orders. Their willingness to come to grips with the problems that will face the new county councils augurs well for the future.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I do not doubt that a little later the House will listen with great interest to a number of hon. Members opposite who represent the areas concerned, but I think it right that I should, from these benches, oppose these Orders on grounds that concern not merely the areas affected but certain general principles involved in the reform of local government. In that connection, I first refer to certain things the Minister said at the end of his speech. He praised the co-operative attitude of the county council of the Isle of Ely in preparing for the changes. He said that he did not wish to hold that, as it were, against the county council as being any condonation oil its part of the changes—and, almost in the same breath, that was exactly what he was doing. He was urging the fact that the Isle of Ely had been co-operative as a reason why the House should accept the Order. This is a warning to any local authority which in future endeavours under a mistaken sense of public spirit to be cooperative about changes in which it does not genuinely believe.
I also draw special attention to the right hon. Gentleman's account of what would happen if the House approved the Orders, and what would happen if it did not. If the House did approve, we had settled the question for nine years; if it did not, the whole thing was back in the melting pot. Admitting both these facts, they are very solid reasons why the House should have an opportunity of considering Orders like this at greater leisure than is possible when we start at 10 o'clock. These are, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, very important Orders and there will


be a great many of them. Once we have made them it will not be possible—apart from statutory provisions, it is a matter of common sense—to reopen many of the questions which they settle. We are worried that if we reject them we may cause great confusion in the areas concerned. The House, for these very reasons, ought to have leisure and proper time to consider these Orders.
More generally, on the principles of local government reform, I would have said that among the things one wants to consider when the House is asked to approve an Order of this kind are, first, the question whether the proposed changes carry with them the promise of benefits comparable to the amount of upheaval and distress and hostility that they cause. Admitted that any change means upheaval and that any change will evoke hostility and that if one allows upheaval and hostility always to be an argument one would never do anything at all, one must ask whether the benefits here are comparable to the degree of upheaval and distress that is caused.
Next, one must ask whether in any particular change the Government appear to be proceeding on a consistent plan and a coherent principle. I shall take great care to try not to transgress the rules of order, but I think that it will be proper at one stage to make a comparison with what is being done in this case with what has not been done in another. The relevance of that is that when the Government ask us to make changes in one area we are entitled to ask whether this is whimsical and capricious or is following out a coherent general principle.
The third thing which we must consider is whether the proposed reorganisation of local government is relevant to the real major problems which the country will have to face in this field. Bearing this in mind, how do these Orders stand up to the test? In this respect I want to confine the main attack to the Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely Order.
First, as to the amount of upheaval and distress, I have had letters from people engaged in local government, both as elected members and officials in the area, indicating the immense amount of

their time which has been taken up in the last two years in preparing arguments and counter-arguments on these schemes. Every one of these schemes starts with a considerable debit balance of consumed time and the hampering of local government.
Then we have to ask how popular were the Commission's original ideas. It is interesting to notice that when the Commission, as it then was, tried to get the initial reaction of the authorities concerned the reaction of Cambridge City was perfectly simple. It wanted to be a county borough and that was that. No one will blame those concerned for wanting that. It is not unfair to say that they felt that provided that was achieved they were willing to take a broad and sympathetic view of anything that the Commission might propose for any other part of the area.
Peterborough very sensibly drew attention to the anomalous position as between the City of Peterborough and the Soke of Peterborough. As to that, I do not think that there will be much argument. But all the county councils and the great majority of the district councils told the Commission, in effect, that they did not think that the Commission could do any good at all and they would prefer to be left as they were. This was the view not only of the councils but of a large range of voluntary bodies and official bodies.
The Health Service Executive Council, community councils, the National Farmers' Union, the Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire and Isle of Ely Community Council all turned a cold shoulder to the Commission from the start. Indeed, in general, the idea of being anything like this appeared to be about as popular in the East Midlands as a proposal to abolish resale price maintenance would have been at last year's Tory Party Conference.
Cambridge University presented, so the Commission tells us, no agreed view on the matter. I stress this point because the Minister drew a picture of, I think he said, three out of the five parties concerned agreeing to this proposal. Nobody has agreed to these proposals except as a second or third best. Nobody in the whole area really likes these proposals. I do not say—and I emphasise this—that that would be a


decisive argument against making changes—certainly not. I say that it puts on us a special obligation to consider whether the changes are worked on a coherent principle and whether they confer corresponding benefits.
On that point I wish particularly to examine the case of the Isle of Ely, and trust that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) will not feel that I am trespassing unduly on his preserves. As he will see, there is a matter here that concerns more than the Isle of Ely itself. The basic argument for swallowing up the Isle of Ely in Cambridgeshire plus Isle of Ely was that the Isle of Ely was too small to run its services properly. I concede that there is great force in that argument. I accept all that the Minister said about the importance of case loads. I wish that he had been willing to accept it when we were pointing out to him some time ago the unwisdom of breaking up the health and welfare service of the London County Council. But if the Minister had been really heroic on that ground, he would have stuck to the four counties proposal, despite its unpopularity. Were the argument on having an authority large enough——

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman must mean "gone back to". It was the Local Government Commission that left the four counties proposal.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I accept that correction. The Minister should have gone back to the four counties proposal if he had been really heroic and consistent on the question of case loads. What he has produced now are counties which, I freely admit, will have an advantage on this question over the existing counties. But he has only gone a distance so limited as to prevent him getting the full advantage from the case load argument. I feel, therefore, that he is in danger of falling between two stools, of producing something that cannot really be justified on the ground of efficient services on the one hand, and that it is only very little removed from being extremely unpopular on the other hand.
This argument, "This county is too small to continue to exist on its own", was particularly urged with regard to the Isle of Ely. When we study the Commission's Report we find that its account

of services in Huntingdonshire, the Soke of Peterborough and the Isle of Ely take up only a page and a half of the Report. There was no detailed examination in the Commission's Report of the quality of the services in the Isle of Ely. The Commission seemed to feel that that omission was justified because it had already proved, as it felt, the general proposition that in a small county one cannot get good services in relation to another county. Indeed, earlier in the proceedings, the Commission had devoted a great many pages to studying the services of Rutland. They were examined in great detail and brought the Commission to the overwhelming conclusion that Rutland was incapable of supporting the services. So satisfied was the Commission with that argument that it felt it unnecessary to make a similar detailed review of Ely services because it felt that the case against small counties was already made when it had examined Rutland.
Let us look at the comparative position of Ely and Rutland. This was the point I was making earlier, that if we are asked to approve these Orders they should follow a coherent principle. Some of the matters raised in the discussion of Rutland were the following. One was the question of opportunities for grammar school, or what is commonly called grammar school, education in Rutland. The Commission pointed out that Rutland was dependent for this kind of education entirely on schools outside its control. That is true. Ely is not entirely dependent for this kind of education on schools outs de its control. I do not dispute that there are difficulties about the education service in the Isle of Ely. I do say that any argument which applied in that field which applied to Ely applied with greater force to Rutland.
In the provision made for handicapped children, the Isle of Ely has of its own a school for educationally subnormal children. Rutland has not. In agricultural education, Ely has its own college of further education and horticultural institute at Wisbech. There is no comparable institution in Rutland.
Ely maintains its own police force. Rutland has always been obliged to make a joint arrangement with the neighbouring County of Leicestershire. At every point, every argument that is used for swallow-


ing up Ely applies with greater force to Rutland. The Minister should explain to the House why, if he is so eager to swallow up Ely, he was so determined to preserve Rutland.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In case, Mr. Speaker, I am not in order in making a speech on this subject, I should like to intervene at this stage and ask the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) whether I can take it, therefore, that if an Administration comprising his party had been handling this matter, Rutland would have disappeared. I take it that in the case of my county——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That clearly goes over what is the precise line.

Mr. Lewis: I am trying, Mr. Speaker, to follow what the hon. Member has said. If that were the case, what would be his reaction on the Welsh counties, where the Minister has also said that there is likely to be——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is desirable that the House should follow the position clearly. We cannot, in the context of this Order, investigate other schemes and their merits or demerits in relation to other places. What we are looking at in the context of this Order is why, if a principle justifying this Order exists, it was not also applied in the other instance. That is the position.

Mr. Stewart: The only answer I can make to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) which would be in order, and I think that it is sufficient, is that whatever solutions might be adopted anywhere, the one thing that is clearly indefensible is the combination of the preservation of Rutland with the destruction of Ely. The reason given for it is that Rutland is unique. In what respects is it unique? Which resisted longest against the Conqueror? Was it Ely or Rutland? What is the respect in which Rutland is unique? It is unique in the sense that there is no other county in the country the arguments against whose continued existence are stronger.
That is the reason the Minister has given for this discrimination between Rutland and Ely. I have no quarrel

with the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford. I think that the whole House sympathises with the very valiant fight which he has put up. We are bound to congratulate him on his success. It is the Minister whom we cannot congratulate on the transaction. Cambridgeshire said that it would agree with the idea only if Ely were a willing partner, and did not like the idea of being tied to a reluctant Ely.
There is one other interesting matter about Cambridgeshire. An interesting proposal was put to the Commission which might have gone some way to meeting the views of the Cambridge City. It was that the whole of Cambridgeshire should be treated as a single all-purpose authority. Obviously, there are a good many pros and cons for that and it is a pity that the Commission did not feel able to examine that interesting proposal in greater detail. If it had done so, some of the difficulties might have been resolved.
Lastly on the Cambridgeshire Order, I should like to revert to one of the general principles which I mentioned earlier—what relevance all this has to some of the major problems which we shall have to face. The Government themselves have indicated what they consider to be the purpose of these changes and the standard by which they should be judged.
In our recent debate on the Buchanan Report, the Government rejected Professor Buchanan's suggestion for regional development agencies on the ground that local authorities, as enlarged and strengthened by the work of Orders of this kind, would be able to deal with the kind of problem which Professor Buchanan described. Nobody who has read Professor Buchanan's "Traffic in Towns" and considered his examination of these problems on the scale of regions bounded by traffic water sheds and who has grasped what he is talking about would suggest that by amalgamating Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely one would produce the kind of authority which could deal with the Buchanan problems. I would not have raised this if the Government themselves in that debate had not set that standard. That is why the Government must more seriously consider the problem of regional administration, and until


they do they will never get their local government thinking right.
Since the House has agreed that we should discuss the two Orders together, I wish now to refer to the Order about Huntingdonshire and the Soke of Peterborough. This is on quite a different matter. The Minister said that the electoral provisions of the Order would be of great interest to the House; they will indeed. I notice particularly Article 8 of the Huntingdon and Peterborough Order, paragraph 1 of which says:
The number of county councillors for the new county shall be 64 and the electoral divisions shall be those indicated on the electoral division maps, their areas being those shown by red and purple lines on those maps.
That does not tell the casual reader a great deal.
If one finds out how these electoral districts are drawn, one gets some interesting results. Each of these electoral districts is to return one county councillor, and one would reasonably suppose, therefore, that there should not be too great a difference between the number of electors in one district and the number of electors in another. Indeed, the relevant Statute, the Local Government Act, 1933, says in Section 11(6, a):
The divisions shall be arranged with a view to the population of each division being approximately equal, subject to due regard being had to area, to a proper representation both of the rural and of the urban population, to the distribution and pursuits of the population, to the last published census for the time being, and to evidence of any considerable change of population since that census.
That is not an unreasonable statement in itself, and it should be noticed that it gives primacy to approximate equality of population. That is not to be an absolute unquestioning rule. There are other provisos put in, but the divisions are in the first place to be arranged with a view to approximate equality of population.
As a general rule, approximate equality of population will mean that there will be approximately the same number of electors in one electoral district as in another, but in certain parts of the country, of which this is one, one may get a rather curious result. If there is a large military establishment, where a number of the inhabitants are our allies and not citizens of this country, they are none the less part of the

population of the area, and one has the curious result of their being taken into account when one is drawing an electoral district. I think that our allies would be greatly startled if they realised that the presence of their forces in this country had this extraordinary effect on electoral districts of county councils. I think that this is a matter which should be looked at, to see whether our measuring rod ought to be the number of electors rather than population.
Apart from that special factor, as a general rule, approximate equality of population will mean approximate equality of electors, and I propose to examine some of the electoral districts in the new county council of Huntingdon and the Soke of Peterborough to see how equal or unequal is the number of electors in each district. It is, of course, generally argued that one must expect there to be fewer electors in a rural countryside part of the county than in an urban part of it. There are two arguments advanced for that. The first is that if one has equal numbers the countryside electoral districts might be too large—though why one cannot remedy that by having more electoral districts in the urban part of the county I have never seen—and the second is that it tends to give a political advantage to the Conservative Party. We have become accustomed—too accustomed in my judgment—to accepting that.
But the electoral areas drawn in the new county do not even give one equality as between one part of an urban district and another. Consider the Urban District of Fletton and two of the several electoral districts into which that is divided. Fletton No. 3 has 2,426 electors and Fletton No. 4 has 1,380a difference of over 1,000. Some of the electoral districts in the county have not got 1,000 voters all told, yet the difference between those two similar areas in the same urban district is more than 1,000.
The thing becomes more remarkable, however, when one compares Fletton No. 3, in an urban area of the County, with its 2,426 electors, returning one county councillor, with Great Gransden with 793 electors, also returning one county councillor. "One vote one value", once said the right hon. Mem-


ber for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), but this is giving a vote in the rural part of the county three times the value of a vote in some urban parts of the county. One also notices that in the whole area of St. Neots urban district—which is divided into several county council electoral districts—there are twice the number of electors in every county council electoral division as there are in the divisions to be found in Huntingdon rural district. So this inequality runs all the way through.
Proposals were made to the Commission by the Trades Council and the Huntingdonshire Constituency Labour Party which could not be faulted as being partisan. The proposal put forward by the Huntingdonshire Labour Party would have given an average number of electors in the rural parts of the county of about 1,200 or 1,300, and an average number of electors in the urban part of the county of about 1,500 or 1,600. Even under that proposal there would still have been some advantage in the rural areas—but not the intolerable advantage which is apparently to be fixed in this Order.
There is, however, one possibility—and I hope that the Minister will lay hold on it: this is something which can be revised before the nine years are up. But the persons interested have not been able to obtain any guarantee of how early such a revision will take place. It is a pity that there is no provision for it in the Order. But this at least is one unsatisfactory feature that the Minister could remove tonight, by giving an assurance that there will be an early revision of the shockingly unequal electoral districts.
I must apologise if the arguments that I have presented appear to be a somewhat mixed bill of fare, but it is inevitable, in discussing Orders of this kind, that whenever one brings forward proposals for local government reorganisation an immense number of pros and cons have to be weighed. But I am led to the conclusion, on adding up the defects generally—the inconsistency, the lack of principle, the failure to give the House sufficient time to consider the matter, and the perpetuation of this long-standing injustice in county council electoral divisions—that together they make a case why the House should reject the Orders.

10.49 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I hardly know whether to play the rôle of a gladiator or that of Androcles tonight; whether to say morituri to salutamus on behalf of the Isle of Ely County Council or to try to pull the thorn out of my right hon. Friend's lion's foot—the thorn of Rutland. The speech of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) was, in that part concerned with the Isle of Ely, not quite all that it seemed. It is very easy indeed to play party politics with this business, but what concerns me most is how to ensure continuing effective local government in my constituency. Other hon. Members principally concerned will no doubt have the same sort of consideration in mind.
There is a very real risk—I think the House should know this—unless the Isle of Ely County Council staff knows for certain whatever we do tonight will be a lasting decision for the best part of 10 years, of county council government breaking down in the Isle of Ely. This is because of the delay which has happened since the Boundary Commission first got to work.
There are many who could perhaps criticise the way in which the Commission was set up and the terms of reference it was given. When in the late 1950s we debated the three White Papers concerning local government, none of us knew which counties would actually come under the hammer. Had we known that perhaps we would have said different things, but the fact is that Parliament set up the Commission, it has produced draft proposals and a final Report. The difficulty I have been in all the way through is that, while I knew that my constituents in general were in favour of continuing with an independent county council with which they were entirely satisfied, the moment we came to consider what the alternatives were there was very little agreement.
My right hon. Friend is open to a little criticism tonight for not having drawn attention to the fact that Wisbech, the only other borough in the geographical County of Cambridgeshire other than Cambridge, was inclined to favour the four county recommendation if the independence of the Isle of Ely had to go. Thorney Rural District


Council is to be taken over by the other Order to become a part of Huntingdonshire and the Soke of Peterborough. It too has interests towards Peterborough rather than towards Cambridge.
The Isle of Ely is not agreed as to the alternative to being allowed to remain independent. The southern part would prefer, if it had to go to any authority, to go towards Cambridge, while the northern and north-western parts would rather go to Peterborough. They would have preferred the four counties to be set up to bring Peterborough into the picture.
As my right hon. Friend recognised, in the debate I initiated before the Summer Recess, I have tried all through, both with him and his two predecessors—to convey to the Department how my constituents were feeling on this matter. I have to say frankly tonight that my heart tells me that I ought to vote against this Order, but my head tells me that if I and the majority were to do so there would be a very real risk of local. government breaking down in the Isle of Ely.

Mr. Dan Jones: Why?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Because the confidence of local government officers at March, the principal town in the Isle of Ely, has been so undermined by the length of uncertainty that already 50 officers have put in for transfers to other authorities. A large number does not wish to go to Cambridge, others do not wish to move and others do not wish to travel from March to Cambridge each day to work under the new dispensation. The result is that local government is starting to break down.
If this were to happen, it would be the negation of what we ought to do, for we ought to be ensuring continuing effective local government. I say to the hon. Member for Fulham that if we could start all over again and give different terms of reference to the Commission, and if none of the things which have happened had in fact happened, there would be much to be said for his argument. But with all the seriousness I can command—and the House knows me well enough to accept that I am not unduly hesitant in voting according to my true feelings—I suggest that it would be a catastrophe if the Order were re-

jected. It would mean that all the work which has been done to smooth the wheels would be undone and wasted. I agree with the hon. Member for Fulham: that to say a certain amount of work has been done on the assumption that the Orders would be passed is no reason for passing them. But I do not think that we can otherwise undo the uncertainty which has been created.
My right hon. Friend said that if the Order is rejected the whole matter is thrown back into the melting pot. If that happened, the staff of the Isle of Ely would drift away pending a final decision. Who knows when that would be taken? Nobody can suppose that it would be taken in the next eight or nine months. In all probability, it would take over a year for the Department to make up its mind what it intended to do.
I have some regret in having to refer to this, but when the present Home Secretary was Minister for Housing and Local Government I did my best to try to overcome the appalling difficulty which would inevitably arise in meeting the natural ambitions of Cambridge City while avoiding a decision to wrench the county town out of the heart of Cambridgeshire. These problems are almost irreconcilable I have always sympathised deeply with Cambridge City. I recognised its natural ambitions, based on numerical qualification, for county borough status.
For that reason, some years ago I had a resolution passed in Cambridge by a substantial majority suggesting a new type of authority. But that would have meant altering the Commission's terms of reference, and my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary would not do that because, he said, Parliament had debated the White Papers and had decided that we should stick to the present types of authority, however much be altered boundaries or merged authorities. We were not to create a new type of authority.
I believe that the time will come—I do not know when, and presumably it cannot happen before 1973—when we shall have to have new types of authority. I want to see a rural county borough, with only one set of elections, with nominations from districts to serve on the higher authority and with the large borough, which wants county borough status, having a larger share in this autho-


rity than before. But these are all hypotheses for the future. I wish that we could have dealt with the problems in more detail before we reached this stage. Unfortunately, that was not possible because Parliament had decided that it wanted the old types of authority.
The present Clerk to the Isle of Ely County Council, Mr. Richard Thurlow, when he was appointed in 1935 was the youngest-but-one clerk ever appointed to a county council. He has stayed with the county all the way through and has served it loyally—as loyally as any man could. Possibly no one more than I and the chairman of the county council know the care and thought which he has given to the well-being of his present staff. His nobility can best perhaps be shown from the fact that he is laying no claim to go on to be clerk to the new county but is prepared to serve as clerk of the peace in that new county with another clerk by his side. That is public spirit of a very high order.
May I add a word of appreciation of the present chairman of the Isle of Ely County Council, Commander Alfred Gray, R.N. Comander Gray was my Labour opponent in 1945. He fought me again in 1950, 1951 and 1955. Nothing, however, gave me more pleasure than to learn that he had become chairman of the county council, with Conservative support.
There has been a public spirit in local government in the Isle of Ely that is truly noteworthy. The gallant gentleman to whom I have just referred took over the chairmanship from another gentleman who has had to bear a great burden in all these negotiations, Alderman T. W. Anthony. I will mention only these few names tonight, but the only hope for the county is for it to work and display the sort of public spirit which they and all concerned have displayed. I believe that the other counties concerned can also do this, but it will come about only if there is a spirit of give and take on all sides.
There are about 12 principal officers to be appointed by the new local authority. Given the earliest possible moment that an election can take place for the new authority, it will be well into November before the new council can possibly meet; that is, assuming that

the election takes place on the earliest occasion. If we must wait until then before the new authority starts selecting anyone, imagine what will happen in the meantime. There will be jockeying for position and the possibility of unnecessary anxiety, which could be avoided if the new partners in the new authority could get together through their working party to try to bring about a set of recommendations to implement these Orders as soon as they come into force.
I was deeply grieved to learn from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) that Dr. Ellis had passed away last week. He had been acting as chairman of the working party and had been doing a tremendous amount to try to get some of these problems resolved. Presumably a new chairman will be appointed. I hope that the working party will get to work as quickly as possible. The Minister, in a letter which he wrote to me after he had kindly received a deputation from the Isle of Ely County Council, went out of his way to say how much he had been impressed by the public spirit shown by those who comprised the delegation, which was led by Commander Gray.
I should like to feel that the Minister is as keen as I am to see the Isle of Ely—while it no doubt will not get the majority of the high offices that will be going—gets its fair share of appointments. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend's powers will be limited, but an immense amount of goodwill could be built up with the help of his Department, and I hope that the Minister will do all he can.
The trite phrase, "The gentleman in Whitehall knows best," has been used time and again. It was particularly in evidence at the last General Election. I hope that it will be taken in the good humour it is intended when I say that local government officers are now saying, "The Dame in Whitehall knows best." We all enormously respect the head of my right hon. Friend's Department. She addressed an important meeting at Bristol on 11th April, 1962, and uttered some wise words about the future of local government. She said:
Local government has got to become more collectively effective. At the same time, central government must make greater efforts to bring


local government into the working out of policies. They can only do this, however, if there is an effective machinery for consultation. You cannot work out policies with 1,400 local authorities, most of them intent on their separate, parochial and often conflicting ends …
A little later on she said:
Isolationism never yet paid—or not for long …
The Isle of Ely has to some extent been an isolated authority ever since 670 A.D. Tonight, we kill it as a separate authority, but I do not believe that in killing that authority we will kill the spirit of the people living there. Nor do believe that, if the Order be carried, we are denying to the many people who will go on living there long after we have gone an opportunity to serve their fellowmen as well as the County Council of the Isle of Ely has served them during its existence.

11.5 p.m.

Sir Hamilton Kerr: When my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government recently visited Cambridge to discuss the sanguinary question of college rating, I remarked that he reminded me of some of the pictures of St. Sebastian, who was pierced with a hundred arrows, but whose gaze, in spite of his torments, was raised in an ecstatic smile to the sky. Tonight, I am afraid, I have to shoot another arrow at him; because he then remarked, "You shoot most of the arrows". I am afraid that I must oppose this Order.
When the Boundary Commission started its investigation, the City of Cambridge presented its case under three headings; first and foremost that its population of some 96,000 came close to the figure of 100,000 usually accepted as the criterion for county borough status; secondly, that this population comprised some half that of the existing authority and, third, that the City of Cambridge bore some two-thirds of the existing precepts. For this reason, the City of Cambridge favoured what is known as the four-county solution, which would allow its claim for county borough status to be accepted and, at the same time, create a new local authority of some 335,000 people.
In its draft proposals the Boundary Commission agreed with this point of view. After having said that the new

authority would be that of some average-size county, it said:
Secondly, it allowed us to recognise Cambridge city's claim to be made a county borough without leaving a weak system of government for the rest of the area. Thirdly, it seemed to us that despite certain disadvantages it produced a reasonably convenient county broadly similar in size to many existing counties.
After these draft proposals had been published, the City of Cambridge maintained what I claim was a dignified silence—no debate in the city council, no propaganda, no Press headlines pushed its claim further.
Why has he position changed? Why is Ely now dissolved, and the County of Rutland absolved? Can it be the activities of the public relations officer which became infectious? The campaign of Rutland was so ingenious, so full-blooded, it filled me with admiration. At the county boundaries one was met with a forest of flags, every window carried a poster, every car a sticker carrying the same theme: "Rutland fights to keep local government local. Rutland fights on." Never since the days when Cromwell led his troops to Naseby have the leafy lanes and immemorial elms of Rutland witnessed such a scene.
The Boundary Commission, terrified by this display—like the advance of some Chinese army with devils, masks and gongs—revised its decision, and its second proposals now came up, but, alas, leaving some regrets for, in its final proposals, it said:
There is a danger that our proposed new county would be ineffective, because few of those immediately concerned would want to make it effective.
I favour the four-county solution, and I regret the present solution, because I believe that no solution can be lasting that does not rest on the active consent and good will of those concerned. For that reason I must oppose the Order.
I believe that I am right in saying that when the Commission received its instructions it was told to make its recommendations within the existing framework of local government in England, excluding the great conurbations, but now we hear from my right hon. Friend that there are to be new forms of loca1 authorities in Wales. Has St. Sebastian, banish the happy thought, been seduced by the wiles of a Welsh witch?
Having shot this arrow, may I utter a word of thanks in conclusion to the Home Secretary for having increased the representation of the city from 17 to 21 in the new proposed local authority? Perhaps my few words tonight will recompense my right hon. Friend for the eggs and stalks of Brussels sprouts thrown at him recently by undergraduates.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: After having represented Huntingdonshire for the last 19 years and lived there for the last 15 years, it is not without some emotion that I shall witness its disappearance as a separate county. It so happens, as far as I am able to find out, that the present boundaries of my constituency are the boundaries of the constituency represented by Oliver Cromwell when he was a knight of the shire. Although loyalty is based on tradition and we can use history to inspire us, I do not think that we should be imprisoned by the past to the extent that some people apparently wish today.
Nobody really knows why we have these four small counties. No doubt the fact that the fens were there originally has something to do with it. But let us face the fact that, as a recent inquiry has shown, none of the small counties by themselves can provide all the specialist services that modern local government requires.
Before I go further, I should make my position plain to the House in relation to what is to happen to my own constituency. As I hope to be able to show to the House, although it is a small county it is also a leading county. We have the largest number of places in old people's homes per head of the population of any county in England. The latest statistics of the Ministry of Health show that we had less illness in the county than any other county and were indeed the healthiest people in England. We had for many years the largest number of people enlisted in Civil Defence per head of the population. I do not know the latest figures but certainly that was the position for some years up to the time I left the Home Office, though it had nothing to do with me. Our people are thrifty and generous. Their thrift is

shown by the fact that they often head the eastern region in the national savings campaign, and their generosity, because per head of population they often raise the most money for Poppy Day.
Progress in education since 1945 has been most remarkable, although it is fair to say that some of it could not have been achieved without the co-operation of the central Government. One could spend a lot of time outlining the achievements of Huntingdonshire. The House may feel that things having been going so well with us that there may be little need for the proposed change. In a sense that would be a fair comment, but it would be one based on inadequate information. This is a change which, in my opinion, would be of benefit both to Huntingdonshire and the Soke of Peterborough. I do not regard Huntingdonshire as being assassinated. I regard tonight as a happy betrothal, as a prelude to what I am sure will be a happy marriage. Each of the two counties is small but the new county which is to be formed will not be very large. The two counties already have a number of contacts. They share the same agricultural executive committee and various other common services, especially where their borders join. For example, the fire services at Fletton and Peterborough, although in separate counties, have worked together as one. The new county will have very good communications and a great community of interest. It will be a compact and convenient local government unit.
It is significant, perhaps, that the first two boroughs in the whole of the United Kingdom to unite since the war were the boroughs of Huntingdon and Godmanchester, and in that way my constituency gave a lead in the voluntary amalgamation of boroughs.
Now we are to have what is, I think, very near to being a voluntary amalgamation between these two counties. Even many of those who have misgivings about it, whether they be local government officers or members of the county councils, have in recent months, since the Government's decision was announced, done all they could to prepare the way successfully for this merger. Therefore, I was rather surprised by the speech of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). When he spoke of the "upheaval, distrust and hostility" that


these proposals have aroused, he was quite remote from the feeling in, at any rate, Huntingdonshire. There has been nothing of the kind that he described. Although, no doubt, he will get a proper and accurate answer from my right hon. Friend on the question of the polling districts, I wonder if he realises that if his suggestions about polling districts in Huntingdonshire had been brought to fulfilmint, Huntingdonshire would have been thought by the Soke of Peterborough to have an undue preponderance of seats on the new county council, and that might have prevented the merger from being so happy and successful.
There is one request on a matter of detail that I should like the Minister to make to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. It relates to the question of what the judicial centre of the new county should be. The whole question of where assizes and quarter sessions should be held, and what the judges' circuits should be for the new county has not been settled. Those matters are not mentioned in the Order. If I may make a suggestion to the Lord Chancellor, it is that no decision on those questions should be taken until the new administrative centre for the county has been fixed after the first meeting, or maybe the second meeting, of the new county council. I do not think it would be right to anticipate or forestall the decision as to the siting of the administrative centre by making any decision at all meanwhile about the judicial centre.
It is not without much searching of both the heart and the head that I have come to the conclusion that this is the right decision for my constituency and, for that reason, I welcome the Order.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Martin Maddan: The Commission in its proposals suggests that Royston should be transferred from Hertfordshire into the new County of Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely. The Minister decided to keep Royston in Hertfordshire. That was very much welcomed in principle by the vast majority of people in Royston, but they are concerned about the Minister having deferred his decision about adding to the land area of the urban district council, which asked that it should have

a few hundred acres now in Cambridgeshire added to it.
This is what the Minister said in his memorandum:
… he has decided that any adjustment of the county boundary should be left until the expansion of Royston becomes a reality. It would then be open to either of the county councils to make proposals for boundary alterations under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1933.
So, the point is this. Of course, before expansion can become a reality, there must be land on which the expansion can take place, but the fact is that there is very little suitable land within the Royston Urban District Council's present boundaries. Furthermore, expansion requires new industry, and new industry requires new workers who require houses suitable to live in. Yet much of the land which is available for such housing—or could be available—within the urban district's area, cannot be developed in the near future because at present it is used for sewage works and refuse tips. Expansion is obviously desirable and I am certain that, in the light of the conclusions he has set out in the South-East Study which is to be published in a fortnight's time, the Minister will welcome the expansion of Royston.
Secondly, expansion is desirable to increase rateable values, necessary to help pay for the new sewage works which the town must have, and to make an economic propostion of the development of the town centre where there is at present so much property that is empty or derelict. In my view, the Minister is bound to want expansion. Royston wants expansion, and the urban district council and Hertfordshire County Council have begun discussions on the detailed requirements for expansion. Settling these matters will meet the point made by the boundary Commission which the Minister summarised in his memorandum to the effect that, with the extent of the expansion of Royston still unsettled, it would be difficult to fix the precise line of expansion into Cambridgeshire. But, if the county council and the urban district council agreed on the expansion and in order to make it a reality they secured the additional land, then I hope that the Minister will consider sympathetically the proposals made to him.
In a matter of a few months he may expect to receive a list of joint representations from the county council and the urban district council, and I shall certainly support those representations. I hope that the Minister will tell us tonight that he will seize this chance sympathetically and, on that understanding, I support the Order.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and while he was speaking it occurred to me that he must have lived in cloud-cuckoo-land during 1957 to 1958 for, if he thought he could support the Order for setting up a Boundary Commission and that the Isle of Ely would then be left alone, anyone would have told him that it could not be left as it is. If one had had a list of, say, half a dozen county boundaries which were likely to disappear once the Boundary Commission started looking at them, surely he must have known that the Isle of Ely must have been one of them. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that he might have had second thoughts about what he did in 1957–58. Obviously, he did not know any details, but he must have known that something like this would have happened. Anybody would have told him that the Isle of Ely would have had to be included in the recommendations or that it would have to be reviewed at some time in the future.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: What I said was that none of us knew which counties would come under the hammer.

Mr. Reynolds: I agree, but if he had ticked off a list of half a dozen, I should have thought that this particular area would have been one for certain. Obviously, there were half a dozen counties in 1957–58 and we have pulled one of them out. The Minister and other hon. Members opposite have laid stress on the fact that tonight's Order will settle matters until 1973 or some such date. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely said that district council government would break down if the Order was not passed. An attempt has been made to give the general impression that when we have dealt with the matter tonight, that will be the end

of it and the people in the Isle of Ely, Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire and the Soke of Peterborough can sit back and everything will be all right as from 1st April, 1965.
These Orders, however, are only the beginning of the procedure. We should not try to delude anyone that this is the end of it. It is only the beginning. Once the county councils are set up, they must start reviewing county district and other boundaries and the question will arise whether there are other areas which may be dealt with in this way.
I heard with interest the suggestion, from my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and from an hon. Member opposite, that it might have been a good idea to have had a county borough of Cambridge. With the existing terms of reference, which were restricted under the Local Government Act, 1958, it would have been stretching them a great deal, if not impossible, for the Commission to make any such recommendation.
I am aware also that I cannot in this debate criticise the terms of reference and the terms of the Act. I simply repeat what I said on the Luton and Solihull Orders recently, that in 1958 I supported those provisions because I believed in the terms of 1958 that they were correct. I equally believe that conditions have altered so much in the last six or seven years that the provisions of the 1958 Act and the purpose of obtaining local government in England and Wales are now as completely out of date as if the Act had been passed in 1908 instead of 1958.
I am opposed to the two Orders tonight to a certain extent because of that but, secondly, because I cannot see the point of this House approving a major alteration in the county government structure of this part of south-east England when, on the 19th of this month, in another 10 days or so, we are to receive the first regional report that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has prepared. We have had Reports on the North-East and on Central Scotland for development purposes, but they were rush jobs done in six or seven months. For the last two and a half years, however, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—and latterly, I understand, the Board of Trade has also been involved—


has been preparing a detailed regional study of the whole of the area from the Wash across to, I think, somewhere near Lyme Regis. That work has been going on for two and a half years.
In less than a fortnight's time, we are to be given information, with a White Paper expressing the Government's views on matters contained in the Report, which will delineate where population will be moved to and make all sorts of proposals about the location of industry, of new towns and expanded towns, transport facilities and a number of matters of that nature affecting, not only the South-East, but the whole country, because of the concentration of population in the South-East. I suggest that when we are awaiting the first detailed regional report, which must have a massive effect on the local government structure of the South-East, we shall prejudice the position by agreeing to tonight's Orders. We have been awaiting the recommendations ever since the 1958 Act was passed.
I agree with what hon. Members opposite have said about the difficulties that are bound to arise with staff when everything is hanging in the air, but that is inherent in any local government organisation whether or not one agrees with its final outcome. The staff have been in this position ever since shortly after the 1958 Act was passed. This applies even more so to those areas where the Commission has not yet started its work than to those which the Commission has visited, because people do not know how much longer they must wait in the county areas which have not yet been considered.
Bearing that in mind, together with the fact that we are to have the report in less than two weeks' time, it is ridiculous now to press forward with something which, under the terms of present legislation, will afflict us until 1973. I am convinced that the provisions of the 1958 Act do not now give us enough scope for dealing with this problem. I am convinced that we have to go forward to the idea of trying to set up some kind of regional bodies with regionally elected representatives with most-purpose authorities, as suggested by the Boundary Commission's Report in 1947, dealing with practically the whole of normal local government responsibilities. We would then have something like the County Borough of Cambridgeshire, but

at this moment we are only making it more difficult to deal with the matter in the light of the report which we are to have in less than a fortnight and more difficult when we have to get down to dealing with the regional planning of the country

11.31 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Hilton: I should like briefly to refer to what the Minister said about the Isle of Ely and Cambridgeshire. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the Order were passed, the matter would be settled until 1973. Did he mean that there would be no subtraction from or addition to the boundary before that date? He will be aware that the Commission is looking at the other side of the boundary and that there are suggestions—no more at the moment—that part of Norfolk should be taken over by the Isle of Ely. If there is lo be no change until 1973, how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with the distinct possibility that part of Norfolk will be taken over by the Isle of Ely?

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I speak as a resident and elector of the Isle of Ely. It is not proper to let the Order go through without registering a protest at the disappearance of the Isle of Ely from the list of administrative counties. I am all in favour of boundary changes when there are great changes in population, but I am by no means in favour of the method, instituted in 1958, of the Local Government Boundary Commission inquiring into all and sundry changes regardless of population changes, and upsetting administration wholesale into the bargain.
The Isle of Ely is one of the truly historical counties which have grown up to meet local administrative needs. Originally it covered the administrative area up into the Fens stretching from the Abbey of Ely. If there is any area which justifies a separate existence as a local government unit, it is this. It seems to be only its size which is against it. Unfortunately, it has been decided that a new county, consisting of Cambridgeshire, the Isle of Ely and Cambridge itself would be out of balance and that Cambridge is too big to retain in the balance, and so the Isle of Ely is thrown in in order to make up


the so-called balance between urban and rural populations. This is a very bad reason for a change and I could not support the Order except for the reason advanced by——

Dr. Horace King: What a rebellion!

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Except for the Whips.

Mr. Bullard: Whips have nothing to do with it. There is not an easier Order on which to justify opposition for perfectly good reasons, and I do not think that the Whips would have any objection to a protest of that kind. I shall not vote against this Order, for the reasons advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke). We are in the awkward position—and I have protested against this procedure being used that if we vote against this Order we shall throw the staffs of the present county councils into a period of great confusion indeed, and they have had plenty of that already, as many of them have shown by their resignations and their applications for posts elsewhere.
We are in this dilemma—as we shall always be when Orders of this kind are presented—that if we vote against it we shall plunge the local government administration into a further period of uncertainty, and that I am loth to do. I cannot think that this Order is a good one, because it means the disappearance of a county which I believe is, and has been, a very good administrative unit.

11.36 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: With the leave of the House, I shall try to answer some of the points that have been made.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) charged the Government with aberrations under three main heads—consistency, proportion, and relevance. First, he said that if it be right to amalgamate the Isle of Ely with Cambridgeshire, how much more right must it have been to have amalgamated Rutland with Leicestershire. He charged the Government with having called Rutland unique. I was the person who used that word, and I stand by it. The point that was made from this Box at the time was that while Rutland, be-

cause of its size, had difficulty in providing, on its own, services suitably specialised for its people, there would be no advantage to Leicestershire in joining Rutland with its larger neighbour; whereas, with the Isle of Ely and Cambridgeshire we have a potential partnership in which both partners can add very considerably to the new whole. That is why it is not the least inconsistent of the Government to have reprieved Rutland while seeking to amalgamate the Isle of Ely with Cambridgeshire.
On the second charge, the hon. Gentleman said that it really might not make sense—he did not press this charge very hard—to go in for all the trouble and inconvenience that must be caused to the elected members and officials of counties when the result might not be dramatic. But, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) said, this sort of inconvenience and trouble is inherent in any local government reorganisation. The hon. Member for Fulham went on to contrast the priorities involved in providing the means to apply the principles of the Buchanan Report with the needs of country areas. I know that he will be with me when I say that Parliament must deal with case loads as well as with cars. While it is right, if we are seeking now, in the light of what we know, to organise the priorities of local government reorganisation, to deal first with conurbations, it would be wrong if, the Local Government Commission having done all the work, we were to neglect to make a decision on what is a rural area.
The Government have dealt with all the local government recommendations which have been made in England. We have dealt with London, against the retrograde and bitter opposition of the Socialist Party, and when we are returned to power we shall not fail to carry through such Orders as may be shown to be necessary for the other conurbations when the Local Government Commission reports. But in the meanwhile we have this Report to deal with what is a rural area, and we are dealing with it. I think that I have dealt with both the points of proportion and relevance in what I have said in reply to the hon. Member for Fulham.
My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard)—a highly respected Member, who cannot be an easy man to Whip—mourns greatly for the departure of his county, and we can all sympathise with him. But he must recognise that there is much force in what the Commission says about the inevitable limitations of a small county's uphill struggle in providing specialised services for its citizens in education and health. Rutland would have added nothing to its neighbour, while its neighbours have contributed a great deal to help it.
The hon. Member for Fulham was on much firmer ground when he dealt with the electoral areas. This is not a matter that comes immediately within my responsibilities, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is bound by procedure laid down by Parliament. He must appoint a commissioner to hear objections to any electoral proposals put forward by the county council, and in this case he did so. It was only after a fuller study of the objections—and there were a few in the case of the proposed combined County of Huntingdon and Peterborough—that my right hon. Friend approved the proposals.

Mr. Reynolds: He does not have to.

Sir K. Joseph: He does not have to, but he did in this series of cases. He departed from the proposals in the number of representatives for the County of Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely allotted to the City of Cambridge. My hon. Friend was good enough to say a word of thanks to him for that.
It is open to the county to make proposals for a revision of electoral areas to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as soon as it wishes after the coming into existence of the new counties.
The hon. Member for Fulham made only one other point. He thought that the bold decision by the Government would have been to revert to the draft proposals of the Local Government Commission for a four-county solution. The hon. Member is in a minority here, with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) and the City of Cambridge itself—very distinguished

company. The only common factor to all three is that none of them wants to have any part in the one-county solution. That is why they proposed it. In fact, the majority of counties concerned were against the one-county solution, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) put the position best when he said that it would be a case of wrenching the city out of the midst of the county.
I should also comment on the City of Cambridge's criticisms that the Government have acted differently in the case of Wales from their treatment of this rural area in the heart of England. Measured by every possible index of sparsity, the extent of the sparse population in Wales is far greater than it is in any comparable area in England. It was necessary for the Government to take special steps in connection with Wales, because by an Amendment proposed to my right hon. Friend who is now the Home Secretary, during the passage of the 1958 Bill, by the then Labour Members of the Committee, Wales was excluded from the provision which allowed the Local Government Commissions to seek authority from the Minister to treat any particular area as a special review area and consider functions as well as structure.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: Can the Minister tell me which way the Home Secretary voted at the time?

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend warned the Committee that it might well regret this decision, but in the face of strong Welsh pressure he excluded Wales from that provision. The justification for words of warning has become apparent.
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) for the warm welcome he gave these proposals. I shall certainly put to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor the questions that he raised.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely on what I thought was a brilliant speech. It was full of cogency, and I hope the words he addressed to his own constituency authorities will be heeded. He was right


in saying that the Isle of Ely and Cambridgeshire should be partners.
He referred to possible difficulties in the appointment of chief officers. He will realise that this will be essentially for the new county, when it exists, to decide, but I can well see that a joint committee could give valuable service in paving the way. I have already given some advice on staff to the counties. If any of the counties or constituent authorities feel that any further advice from my Department or me might be of use, I gladly invite them, through my hon. Friend, to let me know.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Could my right hon. Friend express a view as to whether he thinks it desirable that preparations should be made for these appointments before the elections are held, the first not being likely before November at the earliest?

Sir K. Joseph: I think that it would be sensible for a joint committee to pave the way as far as possible, although I cannot go so far as to say that it could possibly commit the new county to particular appointments.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Fulham were wrong in one detail. They said that the Commission had failed to consider the proposal of my hon. Friend for a single-tier authority. I refer them to paragraph 133 of the Report, which deals—only shortly, it is true—with that point.

The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) asked me about the kind of stability which could be guaranteed until 1973. In referring to 1973, I was referring to the embargo in the Local Government Act, 1958, on any initiative being taken by a borough to seek county borough status for 15 years after the passing of the Act. There will be boundaries still to be settled on the periphery of the new County of Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely when the East Anglian Report emerges from the Local Government Commission.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) asked about Royston. I undertake to consider any proposals which at some future date may be put to me for boundary changes at Royston to deal with the circumstances of any expansion which may one day Occur.

In answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North, who rightly stressed the importance of the South-East Study, which will be published next week, I stress again that, however much we may go in for planning on a wide scale, we shall still need effective and convenient units of local government to administer services.

I hope that, having heard the main views of hon. Members on these two most important Orders, the House will make its decisions.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 84.

Division No. 40.]
AYES
[11.49 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Cleaver, Leonard
Harris, Reader (Keston)


Allason, James
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Atkins, Humphrey
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Corfield, F. V.
Hastings, Stephen


Barlow, Sir John
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hendry, Forbes


Bateford, Brian
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Bermett, F. M. (Torquay)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hocking, Philip N.


Bidgood, John C.
Drayson, G. B.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin


Biffen, John
du Cann, Edward
Holland, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hollingworth, John


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Elliott, R.W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Holt, Arthur


Black, Sir Cyril
Errington, Sir Eric
Hopkins, Alan


Bourne-Arton, A.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hornby, R. P.


Box, Donald
Gammans, Lady
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Braine, Bernard
Gardner, Edward
Hughes-Young, Michael


Brewis, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Iremonger, T. L.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bullard, Denys
Gower, Raymond
James, David


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Green, Alan
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald




Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Kirk, Peter
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Tapsell, Peter


Lambton, Viscount
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Temple, John M.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Percival, Ian
Thorpe, Jeremy


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pitt, Dame Edith
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Longbottom, Charles
Pounder, Rafton
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Loveys, Walter H.
Prior, J. M. L.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James
Vickers, Miss Joan


MacArthur, Ian
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


McLaren, Martin
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wall, Patrick


Maddan, Martin
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)
Ward, Dame Irene


Maitland, Sir John
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Marten, Neil
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Whitelaw, William


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mawby, Ray
Roots, William
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Woodnutt, Mark


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Seymour, Leslie
Worsley, Marcus


Mills, Stratton
Shaw, M.



Miscampbell, Norman
Sheet, T. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Montgomery, Fergus
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Mr. John Peel and




Mr. Francis Pym.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Redhead, E. C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hynd, H. (Addrington)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Barnett, Guy
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Reynolds, G. W.


Bence, Cyril
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rhodes, H.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
King, Dr. Horace
Silkin, John


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Lawson, George
Skeffington, Arthur


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Slater, Mrs. Harrlet (Stoke, N.)


Cliffe, Michael
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Snow, Julian


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
McBride, N.
Sorenson, R. W.


Dalyell, Tam
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Delargy, Hugh
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Diamond, John
Manuel, Archie
Stonehouse, John


Doig, peter
Mapp, Charles
Taverne, D.


Driberg, Tom
Marsh, Richard
Thornton, Ernest


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin


Foley, Maurice
Milne, Edward
Watkins, Tudor


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Grey, Charles
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Whitlock, William


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mulley, Frederick
Wilkins, W. A.


Hannan, William
O'Malley, B. K.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Harper, Joseph
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hayman, F. H.
Parkin, B. T.
Woof, Robert


Hilton, A. V.
Pentland, Norman



Holman, Percy
Price, J. T. (Weethoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howie, W.
Probert, Arthur
Mr. Charles A. Howell and




Mr. Ifor Davies.

Resolved,
That the Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely Order, 1964, dated 14th February, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.

Motion made, and Question put.

That the Huntingdon and Peterborough Order 1964, dated 14th February, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 83.

Division No. 41.]
AYES
[11.58 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Box, Donald
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Braine, Bernard
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Allason, James
Brewis, John
Corfield, F. V.


Atkins, Humphrey
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.


Barlow, Sir John
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Batsford, Brian
Bullard, Denys
Drayson, G. B.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
du Cann, Edward


Bidgood, John C.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Biffen, John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Elliott, R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Errington, Sir Eric


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Black, Sir Cyril
Cleaver, Leonard
Gammans, Lady


Bourne-Arton, A.
Cooke, Robert
Gardner, Edward




Gibson-Watt, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Glover, Sir Douglas
Litchfield, Capt. John
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Gower, Raymond
Longbottom, Charles
Roots, William


Grant-Ferris, R.
Loveys, Walter H.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Green, Alan
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Seymour, Leslie


Gresham Cooke, R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Shaw, M.


Grosvenor, Lord Robert
MacArthur, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
McLaren, Martin
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maddan, Martin
Stevens, Geoffrey


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maitland, Sir John
Tapsell, Peter


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Marton, Neil
Temple, John M.


Hastings, Stephen
Mathew, Robert (Horriton)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hendry, Forbes
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Mawby, Ray
Thorpe, Jeremy


Hocking, Philip N.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Holland, Philip
Mills, Stratton
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hollingworth, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Holt, Arthur
Montgomery, Fergus
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hopkins, Alan
Mare, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hornby, R. P.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wall, Patrick


Hughes-Young, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Ward, Dame Irene


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Whitelaw, William


Iremonger, T. L.
Percival, Ian
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


James, David
Pitt, Dame Edith
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pounder, Rafton
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Prior, J. M. L.
Woodnutt, Mark


Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Worsley, Marcus


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James



Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kirk, Peter
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Mr. John Peel and


Lambton, Viscount
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)
Mr. Francis Pym.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reynolds, G. W.


Barnett, Guy
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Bence, Cyril
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Ross, William


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
King, Dr. Horace
Silkin, John


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Lawson, George
Skeffington, Arthur


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Cliffe, Michael
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Snow, Julian


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
McBride, N.
Sorenson, R. W.


Dalyell, Tam
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Delargy, Hugh
Manuel, Archie
Stonehouse, John


Diamond, John
Mapp, Charles
Taverne, D.


Doig, Peter
Marsh, Richard
Thornton, Ernest


Driberg, Tom
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Milne, Edward
Watkins, Tudor


Foley, Maurice
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Whitlock, William


Grey, Charles
Mulley, Frederick
Wilkins, W. A.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
O'Malley, B. K.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hannan, William
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Harper, Joseph
Parkin, B. T.
Woof, Robert


Hayman F. H.
Pentland, Norman



Hilton, A. V.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Holman, Percy
Probert, Arthur
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Howie, W.
Redhead, E. C.
Dr. Broughton.


Bill read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — LICENSING BILL [Lords]

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. MacArthur.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — TELEVISION BILL [Lords]

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. MacArthur.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — TAW AND TORRIDGE ESTUARY (LIGHTS)

Motion wade, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Percy Browne: I am grateful for the opportunity of discussing tonight the problem of the lights in the Taw and Torridge estuary.
I always feel that there is something slightly blasphemous about discussing the Elder Brethren and discussing them, as I must do in a slightly critical way, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. As the House will know, the Elder Brethren are responsible to the Minister for any action they may take. I asked for the Adjournment debate because of an Answer given by the Minister of Transport to a Question which was asked by myself and then by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) on I2th February. The Minister said:
… the lights and signals are provided by Trinity House for the benefit of general navigation and not for the benefit of local interests. Fishermen do not pay light dues,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1964 Vol. 689, c. 371.]
This answer could only mean one of two things. Either the Minister and, therefore, the Elder Brethren have no interest in ships that do not pay light dues, or they have no interest if there is purely local concern over any navigational aids.
Perhaps I should explain the criteria which are used to determine whether or not ships should pay light dues. They are, very briefly, that a ship should be over 100 tons unladen, that it should not be in ballast and that it should not be running for shelter. With these criteria it then pays light dues. I suggest that there is one very important local interest which falls outside these criteria and that is the lifeboat. I suggest, furthermore, that this is a local interest which should have been considered and was not considered before the alterations were made to the position of the lights.
In the Question and Answer on 12th February mention was made of fishermen. I do not want to belabour that point tonight, but I would, in passing, say that were it not for the fishermen

who fish in the estuary and outside it there would be nobody to man the lifeboat. I also suggest that the owners of ships who pay light dues are only too glad to know that these large lifeboats are available to go to the aid of ships in distress.
The Minister should have considered the lifeboat. He is responsible for safety at sea in general and for safety devices around our coast. I take as my authority Volume 35 of the third edition of Halsbury's Laws, which informs me that the Minister has statutory control over coastguard; and lifeboats, and that
the ultimate authority in the two important matters of pilotage and lighthouse control is also vested in the Minister.
The first and fundamental question I want to ask the Minister is this. Is it not a fact that the Minister of Transport is responsible, and does he not think that the coxswain of the lifeboat should have been consulted before any decision over the lights was made? I believe that this is a very important point which applies well beyond this particular estuary.
In the event, this is what happened. Experimental lights were installed in December, 1962, at Instow. Not even the harbourmaster at Bideford, who is also the secretary of the Lifeboat Institution there, was consulted. I presume that the pilots were consulted, but there is a great deal of difference between being 60 ft. or more up on the bridge of a merchant ship coming into the estuary on a fairly full tide and in moderate sea—and those are the only conditions under which merchant ships, over 1,000 last year, come into the estuary—tend being 6 to 8 ft. up in a lifeboat in darkness, at low water, trying to get out to help a ship in a heavy sea, as they often do go out, in gale conditions.
These lights have been moved back 1⅓ miles from their original position. This has resulted in certain difficulties which I should like to enumerate. First, There is navy no breaking point, as seamen call it. In other words, the lights were originally quite near the entrance to the estuary on the northern side. When the pilot or master got almost opposite the first light he knew that he had to alter course to starboard or south'ard if he was coming into the


estuary, and vice versa if he was coming out. But, these lights being farther back, he does not know when he must turn in the dark. If the coxswain had been consulted he would have said that he wanted the old lights maintained as day markers at Appledore to give a line on which to turn.
The coxswain of the Appledore lifeboat, whom I saw receive by no means his first award in London for bravery last year, has been in the lifeboat service for 35 years and is accepted as one of the best seamen on the Atlantic coast. He makes this request. This is not simply a request by somebody who knows little of the facts. I understand that these lights may be reinstalled perhaps on the Inner Pulley buoy, but they have been in the present position for 15 months and nothing has been done about the matter because the right people have not been consulted.
Secondly, haze and fog often make it difficult to see the lights from the buoy, and I suggest that the old lights should be maintained as day lights only. If there is early fog, they give a guide into the estuary. Thirdly, there is some disagreement as to whether the new leading line is right for ships going in and out over the bar—and here I might add that a ship went aground about a year ago when following the new course.
Before asking specific questions of the Minister, I would make one other general observation. The reason for the change in the lights, and the expense which that has involved, is because of coastal erosion. The lights were built originally on sand but they had to be moved back to the other side of the estuary, one-and-a-third miles from their original position, because of the amount of sand and gravel which had been dredged from the estuary. It is essential, therefore, that the Minister should think most carefully before giving any more permission for the removal of sand and before granting any more licences to the applicants now before him.
May I now ask some specific questions? First, is it not the Minister's responsibility to ensure that all interests are consulted? Secondly, why have the local interests been ignored, when it is known that a large lifeboat is stationed in the estuary? Thirdly, have there been con-

sultations with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his Ministry in the usual way? Fourthly, will the Minister ensure that the Skern lights are reinstalled as a matter of urgency? Fifthly, will he ensure that the old lights are maintained as day markers? Sixthly, will he take a very careful look at all the evidence before approving any more sand and gravel extraction licences; and, finally, may I have the assurance that if these new lights prove unsatisfactory from visibility reasons, the Minister and the Elder Brethren will reconsider the matter in six months' time when the lights will have been on full power? I say in six months because until 4th March these lights were experimental. Now that they are on full power, some of the hazards such as fog and haze may not be so difficult.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I rise to speak only briefly because I want the Minister to have the fullest possible time for a reply, but I want to underline everything that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) has said. He has done a very good service for his constituency. I have great feeling about the North Devon coastline, because one half of the entrance to the estuary is in my constituency, and the other side is in his. In reply to a question of mine on 12th February, the Minister, as reported in col. 371 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, said that he would certainly look at the matter again. Therefore, I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate he will confirm that the matter will be reconsidered.
This is an extremely dangerous coastline. I will not go into detail, because it would not be relevant, but there has been considerable criticism that there is total lack of a harbour of refuge from Somerset right the way down to Land's End. There is no harbour where a boat may put in in all weathers and at all tides. It therefore becomes all the more vital that we should have the greatest possible degree of safety at the entrance of this estuary, particularly for the lifeboat, which has to put out in all weathers.
I know this bar from personal experience. It is dangerous to go over it if one is going out into the open sea from Instow or Appledore unless there is three-quarters of full-tide. Even by day,


it is vital to steer with great care by the buoys which are put there for the convenience of mariners. Certainly, when coming in at night it is crucial to depend upon the lights which are provided.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will reconsider the matter. It is astonishing that the coxswain and the harbour master were not consulted. Both of them are experienced men and know the coast better than anybody else. I therefore support the hon. Member for Torrington in everything he has said, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that this matter will be reconsidered and that people who are knowledgeable of the coast will be adequately consulted.

12.22 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) and to the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) for having aired this subject, although from what the hon. Member for Devon, North said I can say that the shrewd mariner will take the utmost precautions to enter neither of the two constituencies when attempting passage of the estuary.
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington said about the Bideford lights and I have also studied the correspondence which he has had with my right hon. Friend about the responsibility in general for lighthouses. I cannot promise to answer all the questions which my hon. Friend has fired at me, because some of them did not seem to me to arise directly from this Adjournment debate. I will, however, begin by explaining my right hon. Friend's position in regard to new lighthouse construction.
It is my right hon. Friend's responsibility under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to sanction expenditure from the General Lighthouse Fund: that is to say, the fund into which light dues are paid and from which the general lighthouse authorities draw. As the House knows, in England and Wales the general lighthouse authority is Trinity House. It is this body which makes proposals for expenditure to my right hon. Friend, and if he approves them it

is this body which subsequently carries out the work.
I must, however, remind the House that Trinity House is an ancient institution which has had statutory responsibilities in connection with lighthouses in England and Wales for several generations. It is a corporation whose active members are master mariners with the highest professional qualifications. It is for this reason that my right hon. Friend does not set himself up in judgment on the navigational and technical aspects of proposals which Trinity House makes to him.
My right hon. Friend consults a body known as the Advisory Committee on New Lighthouse Works on every new proposal before he exercises his statutory duty of giving formal sanction. This Committee is chiefly made up of representatives from the Chamber of Shipping. That is a reasonable and satisfactory arrangement, because it is the shipowners who, through the light dues, support the fund. They are the users of the services financed from the fund. It is by means of this consultative procedure that the Minister of Transport for the time being discharges his responsibilities as custodian of the General Lighthouse Fund.
But, having said that, I do not wish it to be thought that either Trinity House or my right hon. Friend is indifferent to the needs of craft too small to pay light dues. That is certainly not the case. In the nature of things, however, the owners of the small craft may not often be automatically consulted. On the other hand, if there are a number of small fishing vessels or yachts known to be involved, I have no doubt whatever that Trinity House would be at pains to consider their views.
In the case of the Taw and Torridge estuary lights, the customary procedure was followed. It was in April, 1962, that Trinity House submitted a scheme to my right hon. Friend to replace the old lights at Braunton Burrows with two new leading lights at Instow, at a cost which was estimated to be £7,600. The reason for the scheme, very briefly, was, as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington, that there had been heavy damage to the sea defences of the old lights, due to erosion of the sand


dunes, and that had been made worse by recent gales.
As a result, it was estimated that to have repaired the old lights would have cost nearly £10,000 followed by continuous maintenance expenditure to resist erosion. In contrast, the proposed new lights at Instow, about a mile further up the estuary, as has been pointed out, would require no sea defence works at all. I have noted what my hon. Friend had to say about the connection between the removal of sand and gravel from the estuary and the erosion. We will look into this, although I am bound to tell him that the opinion which he has given tonight is contrary to the advice which we have so far received on the subject.

Mr. P. Browne: In that case, can my hon. and gallant Friend tell me why it was that the local authority stopped the removal of sand and gravel from the middle reach between the sea and this part of the land?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Not without notice. The removal of sand and gravel had not previously been questioned in this connection and I was not given notice that that matter would be raised. All I can tell my hon. Friend is that such advice as we have received so far has been that this was not a material cause of the erosion.
I return to the story of the new lights. Long before the new equipment could be delivered, there was further damage to the old lights and, as a result, Trinity House abandoned them and installed temporary lights—not experimental, but temporary—in the new position at Instow. That was in December, 1962. Until a few days ago, when the permanent lights were brought into use, these temporary lights had, so far as we knew, given a satisfactory lead-in to the estuary. They did, admittedly, have one disadvantage compared with the old lights, the disadvantage to which attention has been drawn tonight. The old lights had the effect of illuminating the Outer Pulley Buoy which, as my hon. Friend said, is the point of turn for vessels approaching Bideford.
It so happened that the old front, or seaward light, although wrongly sited to provide a lead, had the merit that the

Outer Pulley Buoy was visible in its loom. It is for this reason that Trinity House had been experimenting with lighting the buoy itself, not technically a difficult undertaking, but one in which it has so far been unsuccessful. Failing this, I understand that it is Trinity House's intention to consider the erection of a pair of transit lights on the Apple-dare side to indicate to inward-bound vessels the point of turn. That will meet one of the comments of my hon. Friend.
However, I must add that from the beginning we have been completely satisfied with the action taken by Trinity House to replace the old lights by a new system which we believe to have added to the safety of a mariner entering or leaving the estuary. A few weeks ago, however, my right hon. Friend became aware for the first time that some of the local fishermen and boat owners were against the changes made and had petitioned Trinity House. My right hon. Friend was further informed that as a result of this petition a meeting had been held at Bideford on 6th September, 1963, to which the petitioners were invited, and which was also attended by representatives of Trinity House and of the Taw and Torridge pilots. The pilots stated categorically at this meeting that the new lights were an improvement, and that there had been no adverse comment from masters of cargo vessels using the estuary.
I had not heard until this evening that the lifeboat was experiencing difficulty. I must say that it rather surprises me that this should be so, because, as the hon. Member for Devon, North said, the old lights were abandoned 15 months ago and, so far as I have been able to find out, throughout that time no representations appear to have been made to my right hon. Friend or to Trinity House by the Royal Life-Boat Institution. That is the body which would normally make representations if a lifeboat were placed in difficulties in a manner such as this, and those who know the Institution will be aware that it is not usually backward in coming forward when the safety of its craft is at stake.
It was for the reasons that I have given in telling this brief story that on 12th February, in reply to a supplementary question from my hon. Friend, my right


hon. Friend was able to say that ship- owners and local pilots were satisfied with the new lights. My hon. Friend quite wrongly then said that that was not true. I must therefore emphasise that what my right hon. Friend said was correct. One of our professional officers has since visited the estuary and interviewed the local pilots. He and they are satisfied that the lights provide an accurate lead down the channel throughout the whole of its length from the bar to the point of turn. The same opinion is held by the Chamber of Shipping which has informed us that masters trading into the estuary cannot understand why there should be any opposition to the arrangements.
In fact, the arrangements are opposed by only one master of a small craft which trades to Lundy Island. The other objectors to the new arrangements are a number of local fishermen and boatmen, but our inquiries have established that only two local fishermen regularly go outside the estuary to fish, the remainder being engaged inside the bar.
The situation, then, is that the local pilots and shipowners are satisfied with the new arrangements, while three local owners of small craft who go outside the bar for fishing and trading are not. I hope now that the powerful permanent lights are in use, and once the problem of indicating the turning point near the Outer Pulley Buoy has been resolved,

these people too will see how much better the new arrangements are. On the other hand, if they continue to be dissatisfied, and if they so inform Trinity House or my right hon. Friend after a few months, we shall of course look carefully into their complaints again.

Mr. Thorpe: Do we take it from what the Minister has said that when the official went down from the Ministry he did not steak to either the harbour master or the coxswain of the lifeboat? Are we to draw that conclusion?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I cannot answer for the coxswain of the lifeboat. I do not know whether he spoke to the harbour master informally, but I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, in dealing with harbour authorities and consulting them on matters like that, we have to be careful to limit consultations with the harbour master to the area of his responsibility. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the responsibility of the harbour master at Bideford stops short of this estuary. Whether it would be better to extend his area of responsibility is a matter which no doubt the Harbour Board at Bideford will consider if and when the Harbours Bill reaches the Statute Book.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to One o'clock.